THE  BRITISH  LABOR  PARTY 

BY 

JOHN  HALVOR  LEEK 
A.  B.  James  Millikin  University,  1920 


THESIS 

Submitted  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  Requirements  for  the 

Degree  of 

MASTER  OF  ARTS 
IN  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 

IN 

THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


1921 


/ 


TABLE  OF  COITEITTS 


Chapter  Page. 

Chapter  I. -Early  Stages  of  the  Movement:  to  1906 1. 

Chapter  II. -The  Intermediate  Period:  1906  to  1914 32. 

Chapter  III. -The  Lar  and  After. 

First  Phase:  Truce  and  Coalition 55. 

Second  Phase:  The  Revival  of  the  Labor  Party 62. 

Third  Phase:  Contemporary  Politics ....90. 


Bibliography 


105 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


I 


https://archive.org/details/britishlaborpartOOIeek 


1. 


CHAPTER  I. -Early  Stages  of  the  Movement**  to  1906. 

Fifty  years  or  more  ago,  Y/alt  Whitman,  the  poet  of  Democracy, 
wrote  the  following:  "I  expect  to  see  the  day  when  the  like  of  the 

present  personnel  of  the  governments, Federal,  State,  municipal, 

military,  and  naval, will  he  looked  upon  with  derision,  and  when 

qualified  young  mechanics  and  young  men  will  reach  Congress  and 
other  official  stations,  sent  in  their  working  costumes,  fresh  from 
their  working  benches  and  tools  and  returning  to  them  again  with 

dignity.  The  young  fellows  must  prepare  to  do  credit  to  this  des- 

1. 

tiny,  for  the  stuff  is  in  them.”  The  forecast  must  have  sounded 
wild  and  improbable  when  it  was  uttered,  but  to-day  we  have  the 
spectacle  of  a group  of  sixty  representatives  of  labor,  most  of 
whom  have  been 'actual  working  men,  in  the  British  House  of  Commons. 

Since  the  whole  political  labor  movement  in  Great  Britain  has 
depended  for  its  strength  on  the  organized  trades  unions,  it  might 
be  as  well  to  begin  a study  of  the  former  by  outlining  briefly  the 
history  of  the  latter.  Trades  unions,  which  the  Webbs  define  as 

"continuous  associations  of  wage-earners  for  the  purpose  of  main- 

2. 

taining  or  improving  the  conditions  of  their  v/orking  lives",  were 
under  the  old  English  common  law  considered  illegal,  as  being  con- 
spiracies, or  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade,  and  such  law  was 
enforced  from  the  time  of  Edy/ard  I do wn  to  the  days  of  George  IV. 
But  late  in  the  XVIII  Century  the  effects  of  the  Industrial  Revol- 
ution 7/ere  such  that  not  only  v/as  labor  organization  on  a hitherto 
incredible  scale  rendered  possible  because  of  grouping  of  laborers 

1.  -Quo ted  £y  17.  Diack  in  the  Arena  for  May,  1906,  pp  476-480. 

2.  -Webb,  S.and  B. -History  of  Trade  Unionism,  Revised  Ed., 1920,  p.l. 


. 


2. 


around  the  factories,  hut  the  sudden  ascendancy  and  power  of  the 
employer  was  such  as  to  make  such  combinations  almost  inevitable, 
in  the  interests  of  self  defense.  Consequently,  just  before  the 
opening  of  the  ZIZ  Century,  the  trade  union  movement  experienced  a 
great  impetus.  It  proved  to  be  a bad  time  for  such  organization, 
for  the  excesses  of  the  Prench  Revolution  had  inspired  in  the 
English  people  a temporary  panic  and  revulsion  toward  democratic 
movements;  hence  the  legislation  of  1799  and  1800,  whereby  the 
common  la w against  combinations,  both  of  employers  and  employees, 
was  reiterated  emphatically,  with  heavy  penalties  provided  for  its 
infraction.  However,  the  lav/  was  so  unequally  enforced, persecu- 

tions of  unjustified  severity  being  balanced  by  open  and  unpunished 

violation, that  insistent  demand  for  reform  led  to  the  action  of 

1824,  which  v/ent  to  the  opposite  extreme  and  sanctioned  all  forms 
of  combination  without  restriction.  The  following  year,  hov/ever, 
under  pressure  from  the  employing  classes,  Parliament  reenacted 
the  old  la w in  a modified  form  by  declaring  the  common  law  nominal- 
ly in  force  while  specifically  exempting  from  prosecution  associa- 
tions for  the  purpose  of  regulating  hours  or  wages  of  labor.  Thus 
for  a number  of  years  labor  organizations  held  the  anomalous 
position  of  being  technically  illegal  but  not  subject  to  punish- 
ment. Such  a position  was,  to  say  the  least,  precarious,  and 
finally,  continued  agitation  and  periodic  legislation  culminated  in 
the  acts  of  1871-1876,  which  specifically  legalized  trades  unions 
and  even  went  so  far  as  to  free  them  from  possibility  of  suit.  It 
was  declared  that  no  organization  could  be  prosecuted  for  collect- 
ive action  which  would  be  legal  if  practiced  by  an  individual. 

Meanwhile  the  movement  had  successfully  weathered  the  revolu- 


. 


■ 


Lwe 


. 

. 

. 


. 


3. 


tiogary  period  of  1830-1848  in  European  politics  and  had  resisted 
the  determined  efforts  of  the  Chartists  to  capture  the  unions  for 
their  own  purposes.  The  movement  had  always  been  averse  to  politi- 
cal action,  and  following  the  collapse  of  the  Chartists  for  a 
number  of  years  the  trades  unionists  placed  their  whole  confidence 
in  the  strike  as  a means  of  attaining  their  ends.  Indeed,  however 
the  idea  may  have  originated,  its  practical  origin  is  credited  to  a 

man  not  belonging  to  the  laboring  classes  at  all, John  Stuart 

Mill, since  it  was  at  his  suggestion  that  the  experiment  was 

first  tried.  The  first  avowedly  labor  candidature  was  that  of 
George  Jacob  Holyoake,  who  made  a campaign  in  1857  in  the  Tower 
Hamlets  Qonstituency . The  strength  of  his  effort  was  never  really 
tested,  however,  since  late  in  the  campaign  he  withdrew  in  favor  of 
the  Liberal  candidate.  For  several  years  following  this  effort 
there  were  several  sporadic  attempts  at  securing  labor  members  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  but  the  first  organized  attempt  was  the  for- 
mation of  the  London  Workingmen1 s Association  in  1866.  Its  pur- 
poses were  claimed  at  first  to  be  simply  industrial; indeed, 

favoring  labor  representation  was  the  exception  rather  than  the 
rule  with  the  really  influential  labor  organizations  of  those  days; 
but  the  Association  was  finally  induced  to  include  labor  represen- 
tation in  its  program  following  some  much  resented  judicial 
decisions  in  1867. 

Of  course  such  pretensions  could  not  but  bring  down  upon  the 
organization  the  wrath  of  the  Conservative  element  throughout  the 
country,  and  much  angry  rhetoric  was  expended  upon  this  effort  at 
so-called  class  legislation.  Labor  denied,  however,  that  it  was 
seeking  special  privileges,  and  discredited  the  class  legislation 


4 


argument  by  pointing  out  in  quite  orthodox  fashion  that  the  Consti- 
tution did  not  recognize  classes.  Campaign  expenses  and  payment  of 
members  were  early  difficulties,  but  it  was  finally  decided  that 
such  constituencies  as  decided  to  run  candidates  would  be  willing  to 
pay  their  representatives,  if  elected,  The  Association  officially 
favored  the  extension  of  the  suffrage  to  a residential  and  regis- 
tered manhood  basis.  Only  three  candidates  ran  under  the  auspices 
of  the  Association  in  1868;  and  they  polled  but  4012  votes  in  all 
in  the  three  constituencies  of  Warwick,  Aylesbury,  and  Halifax.  This 

was  the  first  election  after  the  reform  of  1867,  but  no  one  of  the 

1. 

three  was  elected. 

The  failure  of  the  Association  was  generally  attributed  to  a 
lack  of  centralized  control,  and  so,  not  at  all  daunted  by  the  ill 
success  of  their  first  venture,  the  leaders  of  the  movement  pro- 
ceeded to  reorganize  their  forces  under  the  name  of  the  Labor  Rep- 
resentation League  in  the  following  year,  ihe  noteworthy  feature  of 
the  new  organization  was  the  fact  that  its  primary  purpose  was  the 
election  of  labor  representatives  to  Parliament.  It  is  of  interest 
to  note  that  the  movement  protested  against  the  possibility  of 
British  participation  in  the  Pranco-Prussian  War,  which  broke  out 
in  1870.  Generally,  however,  its  attitude  toward  the  Government  was 
conciliatory,  almost  subservient.  Its  early  efforts  in  local  and 
bye-elections  were  fruitless,  but  in  1874  the  political  labor  move- 
ment achieved  its  first  signal  success  in  the  return  of  Thomas  Burt 
for  Morpeth  and  Alexander  Macdonald  for  Stafford, both  represent- 

ing miners'  organizations.  1'his  proved  to  be  the  climax  of  the 
League's  career,  however,  for  it  declined  in  importance  and  finally 

disappeared,  oignificant,  however,  was  its  protest,  in  1876,  of 
1 * " Humphrey,  A. W. , -History  of  Labor  Representation,  p.28. 


♦ 


5. 


Queen  Victoria's  assumption  of  the  title  of  impress. 

Meanwhile  the  trade  union  movement  had  held  its  first  national 
Congress  in  1868,  and  the  meeting  soon  became  an  annual  event,  ihe 
Congress  half-heartedly  acquiesced  in  the  attempt  at  direct  repre- 
sentation of  labor,  but  gave  no  appreciable  aid  to  the  organizations 
formed  for  that  purpose.  It  appointed  a Parliamentary  Committee, 
whose  functions  were  to  influence  the  progress  of  legislation 
affecting  the  interests  of  labor  in  the  nouse  of  Commons  through 
lobbying,  petitioning,  or  any  other  indirect  means  they  might  de- 
vise. But  toward  the  idea  of  direct  political  action  the  Congress 
was  but  lukewarm.  Just  at  this  time,  anyway,  labor  was  in  the  midst 
of  its  fight  for  the  legalization  of  trades  unions,  and  it  had 
little  time  or  energy  to  spare  for  the  representation  project,  and 
so  Congress  after  Congress  passed  without  anything  definite  being 
done  in  spite  of  the  persistent  efforts  of  a few  leaders,  cnee  the 
safety  of  the  trades  unions  was  assured,  the  Congress  adopted  a 
more  sympathetic  attitude  toward  the  problem,  and  urged  upon  its 
membership  the  desirability  of  working  and  voting  for  labor  candi- 
dates. But  no  practical  or  financial  aid  was  given  for  a number  of 
years,  there  being  at  the  time  a prejudice  against  the  use  of 
trades  union  funds  for  such  a purpose.  Political  action  by  working- 
men was  discouragingly  difficult  at  this  time,  anyway,  for,  it 
being  before  the  Eeform  Bill  of  1884,  there  were  registration  dif- 
ficulties to  be  overcome;  unmarried  men  were  required  to  p&y  the 
equivalent  of  a yearly  rooming  bill  of  fifty  dollars;  vrorkingmen 
were  allowed  to  vote  in  the  urban  districts  but  not  in  the  counties; 
and  there  was  a delay  of  two  years  in  voting  involved  in  moving, 
which  was  especially  hard  on  labor,  since  the  fluctuating  and 


6. 

uncertain  conditions  of  employment  made  a permanent  domicile 

1. 

almost  impossible. 

The  elections  of  1880  had  resulted  in  the  return  of  both  hurt 
and  Macdonald,  and  yielded  one  further  labor  victory  in  the  choice 
of  henry  hroadhurst  for  Stoke-on-xrent . his  election  marks  the  rise 
of  a coalition  movement  known  as  Liberal-haborism,  which  was  des- 
tined to  flourish  for  some  twenty  years.  Most  of  the  labor  leaders 
at  this  time  were  xdberals,  and  the  alliance  was  a very  natural  one. 
The  Liberal  Party  took  a sympathetic  vi ew  toward  the  political 
labor  movement,  regarding  it  as  a sort  of  left  wing  of  its  own 
organization.  On  this  basis  for  many  years  it  was  customary  for  the 
majority  of  labor  candidates  to  stand  for  election  only  where  the 
Liberals  conceded  their  strength  and  the  justice  of  their  claim; 
and  for  labor  Members  of  Parliament  to  constitute  a little  group 
working  in  harmony  with  the  Liberal  Parliamentary  g-'oup.  indeed, 
some  critics  claim  that  during  the  '80’s  in  particular,  labor  was 
actually  backward  in  agitation  for  political  reform;  that  it  tagged 
at  the  heels  of  Liberalism;  that  laissez  faire  was  even  trade  union 
creed  until  about  1885.  Such  political  agitation  as  was  attempted 
by  labor  during  this  period  was  that  of  individual  unions,  working 
without  coordination,  and,  at  times,  even  at  cross-purposes,  and 

they  v/ere  successful  only  insofar  as  their  aims  coincided  with 

2. 

those  of  the  Liberal  Party.  The  reforms  of  1884  were  both  good  and 
bad  for  the  cause  of  labor  representation.  Of  course  they  extended 
the  labor  vote,  but  they  did  away  with  the  double  constituencies, 
and  it  had  been  mainly  in  such  districts  that  labor  candidates  had 

been  campaigning.  One  new  labor  member  was  added  to  the  contingent 

1 . -Of . article  by  J.  Keir  Hardie  in  the  Porum  for  August,  19007 

pp.  726-733 . 

2.  Webb,  op.cit.,  p.  368  et.  seq. 


■ 


7 


in  the  elections  of  1885,  and  it  is  perhaps  indicative  of  the  grow- 
ing importance  and  prestige  of  the  movement  that  workingmen  were 
first  appointed  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  that  year,  The  appointees 
were  Liberals,  the  appointments  being  secured  through  the  influence 
of  Broadhurst.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  movement  gained  ground 
locally  much  more  rapidly  than  it  did  in  the  national  government. 

The  attitude  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress,  meanwhile,  had  re- 
solved itself  into  the  shape  of  an  annual  declaration  in  favor  of 
labor  representation,  and  nothing  further;  until  in  1886  persistent 
efforts  resulted  in  the  appointment  of  a special  committee  to 
devise  ways  and  means  of  promoting  the  project,  in  the  following 
year,  however,  this  body  declared  its  independence  of  the  Trades 
Union  Congress  and  entered  upon  a separate  existence  as  the  Labor 
Electoral  Association.  It  was  a unifying  organization  promoting  the 
interests  of  Liberal-Laborism.  It  was  curiously  inconsistent,  how- 
ever, in  that,  although  decidedly  class  bound,  as  was  shown  in  its 
refusal  to  admit  to  its  annual  congresses  any  but  actual  manual 
workers,  it  refused  to  promote  an  independent  labor  organization 
and  insisted  on  continuing  the  alliance  with  the  Liberals.  Perhaps 
that  very  dependence  was  its  weakness,  for  it  had  neither  a long 
nor  an  eventful  existence,  finally  merging  with  the  Liberal  Party 
and  disappearing  about  1895. 

Probably  the  most  significant  political  development  of  the 
^O's,  however,  especially  from  the  labor  standpoint,  was  the  sud- 
den revival  and  growth  of  Socialism.  Since  the  collapse  of  the 

idealistic  Socialism  of  Robert  Owen  and  that  Christian  Socialistic 
movement  with  which  the  name  of  Charles  Kingsley  is  connected. 
Socialism  had  been  in  a state  of  quiescence  bordering  on  total 


' 


■ 


. 

, 

i.. 


■ 


““  ' 8. 

eclipse.  The  influence  of  John  Stuart  Mill  and  William  Morris  and 
others,  however,  and  the  sudden  and  widespread  popularity  of  nenry 
George's  Progress  and  Poverty  quickened  it  into  n ew  life,  The 
organized  movement  "began  with  the  democratic  federation,  in  1881, 
which  had  some  Socialistic  items  in  its  program,  hut  v/as  not  wholly 
committed  to  that  doctrine,  The  conversion  of  the  body  to  a com- 
pletely Socialistic  program  was  rapid,  however,  and  two  years  later 
the  name  was  changed  to  the  oocial  Democratic  federation,  and  its 
attitude  became  more  distinctly  political,  if  not  revolutionary.  In 
1884  there  was  a split  in  the  ranks,  and  William  Morris  headed  a 
new  movement  ¥/hich  called  itself  the  Socialist  League,  whose  aims 
were  less  extreme  and  whose  methods  were  educational  rather  than 
political.  Its  influence  v/as  never  very  ?/i  despread,  however,  and 
the  organization  came  to  an  end  in  1890.  The  formation  of  the 
Christian  Socialist  Society  extended  the  movement  to  the  churches, 
and  there  were  other  lesser  organizations,  all  of  whom  helped  in 
spreading  the  propaganda  and  in  popularizing  the  movement,  though 
many  of  them  were  small  and  ephemeral. 

The  most  important  of  these  early  groups,  however,  and  the  one 
which  has  succeeded  in  maintaining  an  existence  and  extending  its 
influence  right  down  to  the  present  day,  was  the  fabian  society, 
which  took  its  name  from  the  old  foman  general  Quintus  Pabius 
Maximus,  who  was  noted  for  the  extreme  caution  of  his  military  tac- 
tics. The  Pabian  Society  believed  in  the  achievement  of  a Social- 
istic state  through  an  evolutionary  process,  by  means  of  education 
and  propaganda.  It  has  never  been  a very  large  organization  from 
the  standpoint  of  numbers,  but  it  has  contained  in  its  membership 
some  of  the  brightest  intellectual  lights  of  England,  such,  for 


? 


9. 


instance,  as  George  Bernard  Shaw,  H.  G.  Wells,  Sidney  and  Beatrice 
Uebb,  Graham  Wallas,  and  others.  It  has  published  innumerable  pam- 
phlets on  Socialistic  topics  and  has  been  instrumental  in  spreading 
abroad  a clearer  understanding  and  a better  knowledge  of  the  sub- 
ject throughout  the  nation. 

The  now  Socialism,  as  compared  with  the  older,  was  emphatically 
more  practical  and  scientific,  and  was  inclined  to  state  its  pro- 
positions in  terms  of  economic  theory.  Its  significance  to  the 
labor  movement  was  not  at  first  apparent,  for  it  did  not  start  as  a 
class  movement,  even  though  many  of  its  extremer  advocates  did 
preach  the  class  war.  Although  very  naturally  a large  number  of  the 
early  converts  to  the  new  theory  were  themselves  trades  union 
members,  yet  for  a number  of  years  those  in  authority  in  the  Trades 
Union  Congress  were  bitterly  hostile  to  the  movement.  The  Parlia- 
mentary Committee  in  particular  opposed  it.  But  one  fact  which 
favored  the  growth  of  Socialism  in  the  labor  ranks  was  that  the 

skilled  laborers, those  who  were  dubbed  the  aristocratic  trades 

unions, feeling  their  power  and  position  to  be  better  assured 

than  that  of  some  of  their  fellows,  were  rather  inclined  to  hold 
themselves  aloof  in  the  matter  of  aid  to  the  whole  concerted  labor 
movement;  and  the  Socialists,  playing  strongly  on  that  point, 

managed  to  make  very  substantial  gains  for  their  cause  in  the 

1. 

unskilled  labor  groups.  Economic  conditions,  too,  were  favorable 
to  the  Socialistic  propaganda,  for  the  industrial  depression  which 
marked  the  middle  '80’s  brought  unemployment  and  consequent  suffer- 
ing which  furnished  the  most  effective  sort  of  political  capital. 

A few  years  later,  too,  when  business  had  revived,  there  occurred 


l.-Webb,  op.cit.,  p.588. 


, 


. 


10. 


a number  of  great  strikes  which  strengthened  the  radical  element. 
1888  and  1889  were  years  of  great  expansion  in  the  trades  union 
movement,  and  the  most  significant  part  of  it  ?;as  the  formation  of 
a number  of  unions  of  unskilled  laborers,  most  of  whom  had  hereto- 
fore been  entirely  outside  the  organized  labor  fold.  The  great 
London  dock  strike,  for  instance,  led  to  the  formation  of  strong 
unions  of  unskilled  dock  laborers,  and  that  fact,  coupled  with  the 
strong  influence  of  the  Socialist  propaganda  among  the  unskilled 
forecasted  a change  in  the  attitude  of  organized  labor.  Significant, 
too,  was  the  extension  of  the  trades  union  movement  to  what  was 
known  as  the  black-coated  proletariat,  or  those  who  would  be  more 
easily  recognized  ih  the  American  terminology,  as  the  white  collar 
men.  The  Union  of  Commercial  Clerks  and  the  National  Union  of 
Teachers  both  began  their  existence  in  1890,  and  though  they  devel- 
oped rather  slowly  for  a time,  their  beginning  was  a noteworthy 
sign  of  the  times.  Subsequently  there  have  been  formed  Technicians' 
organizations,  a Medico-Political  Union,  and  Actors1  Association, 

a National  Union  of  Journalists,  an  insurance  agents1  organization 

1. 

and  many  others,  even  including  civil  service  unions.  The  period 
just  preceding  the  last  decade  of  the  XIX  Century,  then,  was  one 
of  increasing  solidarity  and  sympathy  among  the  workers,  and  the 
progress  of  the  Socialist  element  in  the  trades  union  organization 
turned  its  activities,  which  had  threatened  to  be  revolutionary, 
into  constitutional  channels. 

The  deferential  attitude  assumed  by  the  Trades  Union  Congress 
toward  the  Liberal  Party,  and  the  continuance  of  the  Liberal -Labor 
coalition  were  extremely  distasteful  to  the  more  militant  of  the 


l.-Webb,  op.cit.,  p.503  et  seq. 


. 


. 


■ 

* 


11. 


Socialist  labor  leaders.  By  1893  this  new,  aggressive  group  was 
practically  in  control  of  the  Congress,  hut  it  was  unable  to  per- 
suade the  body  to  make  an  actual  appropriation  for  the  purpose  of 
electing  to  Parliament  a body  of  labor  representatives  who  should 
act  in  complete  independence  of  either  Liberals  or  Conservatives  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  In  1889  the  Scottish  Labor  Party  had  been 
formed  at  Glasgow,  and  it,  together  with  a number  of  local  indepen- 
dent labor  associations  which  had  sprung  up  all  over  England, 

participated  in  the  election  of  1892,  which  resulted  in  the  return 

1. 

of  twelve  Liberal-Labor  members  and  three  Independents . Since  that 
time  the  labor  representation  in  the  House  has  never  fallen  belo?/ 
ten  men.  In  the  following  year  a group  of  militant  Socialists  under 
the  lead  of  J.  Keir  Eardie  founded  an  organization  which  they 
called  the  Independent  Labor  Party,  with  two  distinctive  purposes: 
in  the  first  place,  its  program  v/as  avowedly  Socialistic;  and  in 

the  second  place,  it  proposed  to  be  an  entirely  independent  politi- 

2. 

cal  unit.  It  aimed  at  a cooperative  commonwealth,  based  on  the 
socialization  of  land  and  capital;  its  methods  were  both  education- 
al and  political.  Its  membership,  though  overwhelmingly  of  trade 
unionists  and  laborers,  was  by  no  means  confined  to  them;  a fact 
which  gave  it  a decided  advantage  over  the  more  class-bound  Liberal- 
Labor  group.  As  a national  party,  its  numbers  have  remained  com- 
paratively small,  but  it  has  maintained  a most  vigorous  propaganda 

1.  -Districts  returning  labor  members:  London  and  environs:  Batter- 
sea,  South  Division  of  West  Ham,  Haggerston  Division  of  Shoreditch, 
Horth-East  Bethnal  Green,  East  Division  of  Einsbury;  urban  dis- 
tricts: Middlesbrough,  Morpeth;  county  districts:  Horth-West  Divi- 
sion of  Uorfolk,  Wansbeek  Division  of  Ho r thumb er land,  ITormanton 
Division  of  South-West  Hiding  of  Yorkshire,  Middle  Division  of 
Durham,  Ince  Division  of  South-West  Lancashire;  Ireland:  West 
Division  of  Limerick,  Ossory  Division  of  Queen's  County;  wales: 
Hhondda  Division  of  Glamorganshire. 

2.  -Humphrey,  op.cit,  p.  135  et  seq. 


12. 


and  has  exerted  an  influence  on  politics  out  of  all  proportion  to 
its  actual  membership . 

The  Independent  Labor  Party  began  its  political  career  under 
most  discouraging  conditions.  It  put  numerous  candidates  in  the 
field  for  the  elections  of  1895,  but  all  of  them  were  defeated.  Hot 
only  that,  but  the  total  labor  group  was  reduced  from  fifteen  to 
twelve,  and  among  those  who  lost  their  seats  was  Mr.  Hardie,  the 
leader  of  the  new  party.  All  parties,  including  even  the  Liberal- 
Labor  group  and  the  Trades  Union  Congress,  united  in  the  bitterest 
hostility  to  the  new  group.  A less  indomitable  group  than  Hardie 
and  his  followers  would  have  succumbed  to  such  a situation,  but 
the  Independent  Labor  Party  continued  its  activities  undaunted. 
Increasing  dissatisfaction  with  the  Liberal  regime,  coupled  with 
unemployment  and  bad  industrial  conditions  in  the  f90's  strength- 
ened its  forces,  and  gradually  the  breach  which  separated  the 
movement  from  the  Trades  Union  Congress  was  bridged;  though  it  is 
but  fair  to  say  that  the  yielding  was  all  on  the  part  of  the 
latter,  for  the  Independents  did  not  retreat  an  inch  from  their 
position.  Probably  the  most  influential  factor  in  this  change  of 
front  was  several  legal  decisions  rendered  during  this  period 
which  apparently  threatened  the  hard-won  immunity  of  trades  unions, 
and  which  put  an  end  to  the  political  apathy  of  the  Trades  Union 
Congress  and  forced  it  into  politics  to  protect  itself.  At  any 
rate,  after  insistent  agitation  on  the  part  of  the  more  aggressive 
element,  the  Congress  If  1899  finally  passed  an  innocent-looking 
and  apparently  uneventful  resolution  which  ran  as  follows*.  "That 
this  Congress,  having  regard  to  the  decisions  of  former  years,  and 
with  a view  to  securing  a better  representation  of  the  interests 


, 


. 

■ 


13. 


of  labor  in  the  House  of  Commons,  hereby  instructs  the  Parliamen- 
tary Committee  to  invite  the  cooperation  of  all  Co-Operative, 
Socialistic,  Trades  Union,  and  Other  working  class  organizations 
to  jointly  cooperate  on  lines  mutually  agreed  upon  in  convening  a 
special  Congress  of  representatives  from  such  of  the  above-named 
organizations  as  may  be  willing  to  take  part  to  devise  ways  and 

means  for  the  securing  of  an  increased  number  of  Labor  Members  in 

1. 

the  next  Parliament." 

The  Parliamentary  Committee,  however,  was  not  trusted  with  the 
next  move.  Delegates  from  the  Independent  Labor  Party,  the  Social 
Democratic  Federation,  the  Fabian  Society,  and  the  Trades  Union 
Congress  met  and  appointed  Mr.  J.  Bamsay  Macdonald  to  draft  a con- 
stitution for  the  proposed  organization.  The  resulting  Labor  Rep- 
resentation Committee  proceeded  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportu- 
nity afforded  it,  and  the  very  next  year  it  proposed  the  formation 
of  an  independent  group  in  the  House  of  Commons,  to  hold  the 
balance  of  power  between  the  two  existing  parties,  and  to  act  with 
whatever  side  favored  labor  proposals  and  measures.  An  executive 
committee  of  twelve  members  was  appointed  to  represent  the  inter- 
ests of  the  various  cooperating  organizations.  Four  years  after 
its  foundation,  the  Labor  Representation  Committee,  though  still 
retaining  its  trade  union  affiliations  and  backing,  declared  its 
independence  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress  and  embarked  on  an  inde- 
pendent career  as  a political  entity.  Its  first  difficulties  were, 
of  course,  financial.  Most  trades  unions  were  forbidden  to  spend 
any  of  their  income  for  political  purposes,  and  to  change  such  a 
rule  was  a difficult  matter.  But  the  afore-mentioned  legal  en- 

1. -Humphrey,  op.cit.,  p.  143. 


. 

. 


■ 


. 

c ; 

j • , 


. 

> • 


- 


, 


- 


14 


croachments  on  the  position  of  labor  made  manifest  the  necessity 
for  an  organization  of  political  offense  and  defense;  so  a campaign 
was  at  once  started  for  funds.  The  proposition  was  necessarily  de- 
layed because  each  union  had  to  ballot  on  such  a proposal  separ- 
ately. Heretofore,  each  union  had  managed  its  own  finances  and 
campaigns,  the  labor  members  elected  being  really  the  representa- 
tives of  their  own  unions  rather  than  of  labor  as  a whole.  Host  of 
the  unions  ultimately  contributed  voluntarily  to  the  expenses  of 
the  Committee.  At  the  Newcastle  Conference  of  the  Committee,  in 
1902,  a separate  fund  was  provided  for  by  a levy  of  one  penny  per 
member  per  year. 

The  political  sagacity  of  the  movement  cannot  be  doubted. 
Hitherto,  the  weakness  of  the  whole  political  labor  cause  had  been 
that  its  advocates  were  split  between  the  Liberals  and  the  Conser- 
vatives, though  the  former  party  probably  received  the  mass  of 
their  support.  However,  it  had  been  impossible  to  swing  the  whole 
power  of  labor  because  of  this  dissension  between  partisan  follow- 
ers of  the  two  great  parties.  The  new  departure  enabled  them  to 
come  together  on  a compromise  basis,  whereby  both  sides  forsook 
their  former  allegiance  and  threw  their  whole  support  to  the  side 
of  labor.  The  political  methods  of  the  party  were  a curious  mix- 

JU 

ture  of  decenralization  and  democracy  on  the  one  hand,  and  cen- 
tralization and  somewhat  autocratic  control  on  the  other.  Each 
trade  union  or  affiliated  organization  decided  on  the  number  of 
candidates  whose  campaign  expenses  and  possible  salary  it  thought 
it  could  afford  to  pay,  and  then  chose  the  men  it  wished  to  run, 
as  well  as  the  constituencies  for  which  they  had  decided  to  fight. 
These  names  were  then  forwarded  to  the  labor  Representation 


, 


, 


f 


. 


, 


f 


f 


15 


Committee,  which  usually  approved  the  names  and  endorsed  them  as 
the  official  labor  candidates  in  their  respective  districts;  which 

meant  that  practically  the  whole  weight  of  organized  labor  was 

1. 

pledged  to  the  candidates  so  approved.  The  presence  of  the  Inde- 
pendent Labor  Party  and  the  Pabian  Society  prevented  the  movement 
from  becoming  a purely  class  one,  for,  their  membership  containing 
considerable  numbers  of  middle  class  representatives,  they  were  at 
liberty  to  choose  whomsoever  they  would  to  run  as  their  candidates, 
and  the  trades  unions  pledged  themselves  to  back  them  as  impartial- 
ly as  they  did  their  Own  candidates.  Priction  occasionally  devel- 
oped, however,  especially  among  the  Trades  Union  members,  who  made 
several  vain  efforts  to  secure  the  exclusion  of  the  Independent 
Labor  Party  and  the  Socialists.  As  an  indication  of  the  relative 
numerical  strength  of  these  two  elements,  it  is  interesting  to  note 
that  in  the  eventful  Congress  of  1900  there  were  delegates  from 

sixty-seven  trades  unions  totalling  545,316  members,  and  three 

2. 

Socialistic  parties  having  an  aggregate  membership  of  22,861. 

In  spite  of  the  energy  of  its  exponents,  the  new  arrangement 
did  not  manifest  any  alarming  strength  in  the  elections  of  1900. 
True,  they  contested  a total  of  fifteen  constituencies  and  polled 
a vote  approximately  five  times  as  large  as  that  of  five  years  be- 
fore; but,  even  including  the  Liberal -Labor  group,  there  were  only 
two  added  to  the  total  labor  representation.  There  were,  of  course, 
offsetting  factors  in  this  campaign.  In  the  first  place,  the  Com- 
mittee had  scarcely  been  formed  ¥/hen  it  found  itself  right  in  the 
midst  of  a general  election,  for  which  it  had  very  little  time  for 

1 .  -C f . article  by  J.  Keir  Hardie  in  the  nineteenth  Century  for 

April,  1903,  pp. 686-694. 

2. -E.  R.  Pease,  in  the  American  Journal  of  sociology  *or 

560-5  61^ 


, 

♦ 

c 

v 


•/ 


f 

r 

t 


' 


16. 


preparation.  In  the  second  place,  the  election  of  1900  took  place 
during  the  South  African  war,  and  the  labor  candidates  and  members 
were  outspoken  in  their  condemnation  of  that  war,  declaring  it  to 
be  imperialistic  and  unjustifiable;  and  naturally,  v/ith  the  country 
in  such  a fever  of  patriotism  as  marked  it  at  the  time,  men  whose 
doctrines  were  so  unpopular  v/ith  the  great  majority  could  scarcely 
ezpect  an  overwhelming  victory.  However,  as  the  v/ar  feeling  sub- 
sided, resentment  against  the  labor  leaders  on  that  score  gradually 
disappeared.  This  fact  was  reflected  in  the  bye-elections  of  1902, 

in  which  three  new  labor  members  were  added  to  the  Parliamentary 

1. 

group.  In  reality,  the  war  was  not  so  much  of  a handicap  to  the 
movement  as  one  might  at  first  surmise,  since  it  converted  into 
out-and-out  Labor  Party  men  a number  of  radicals  who  had  persisted 
in  hanging  on  to  the  coat  tails  of  the  Liberal  Party.  The  labor 
leaders  stigmatized  the  Liberals  as  the  commercial  party,  and 
claimed  that  its  nature  made  inevitable  an  imperialism  for  the  sake 
of  world  markets  which  would  make  it  tend  toward  coalescing  with 
Toryism. 

All  candidates  who  ran  under  the  auspices  of  the  Labor  Hepre- 
sentation  Committee  were  required  to  pledge  themselves  to  the 
program  and  constitution  of  their  party,  and  the  small  group  of 
independent  labor  members  in  the  House  were  kept  in  unity  by  a 
ruling  whereby  they  were  obliged  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the 
Parliamentary  group  or  resign.  This  strictness  of  discipline,  to- 
gether v/ith  a refusal  to  endorse  candidates  as  Socialistic  alien- 
ated the  Social  Democratic  Federation,  which  withdrew  its  member- 
ship from  the  Committee.  The  Co-Operative  movement  was  the  only 


1 . -Humphrey , op . cit . , p . ‘154 . 


17. 


other  important  radical  or  labor  organization  (with  the  exception 
of  the  Miners'  Federation,  which  affiliated  later)  ?/hich  was  not 
included,  however,  it  having  never  formally  accepted  the  invitation 
to  affiliate  with  the  Committee.  The  Constitution  of  the  Committee 
was  revised  in  1905,  and  in  the  new  form  was  inserted  that  famous 
clause  summarizing  its  objects  and  methods  which  has  been  so  widely 
quoted: 

"1.  The  Labor  Representation  Committee  is  a Federation  of 
Trades  Unions,  Trades  Councils,  the  Independent  Labor  Party,  and 
the  Fabian  Society.  Co-Operative  Societies  are  also  eligible  for 
membership . 

"2.  Object:  to  secure,  by  united  action,  the  election  to  Par- 
liament of  candidates  promoted,  in  the  first  instance,  by  an  Affil- 
iated Society  or  Societies  in  the  constituency,  who  undertake  to 
form  or  join  a distinct  group  in  Parliament,  with  its  own  whips  epid 
its  own  policy  on  Labor  questions;  to  abstain  strictly  from  iden- 
tifying themselves  with  or  promoting  the  interests  of  any  section 
of  the  Liberal  or  Conservative  Party,  and  not  to  oppose  any  other 
candidate  recognized  by  this  Committee.  All  such  candidates  shall 
pledge  themselves  to  accept  the  Constitution,  to  abide  by  the  de- 
cisions of  the  Group  in  carrying  out  the  aims  of  this  Constitution 

or  to  resign;  and  to  appear  before  their  constituencies  under  the 

1. 

title  of  Labor  candidates  only." 

Such,  then,  was  the  organization  that  was  destined  to  cause 
such  surprise  and  alarm  at  the  election  of  1906.  Thus  far  it  had 
occasioned  bpt  little  comment,  and  the  stalwarts  of  both  parties 

1. -Quoted  by  J.  Keir  Hardie  in  the  Forth  American  Review  for 
August,  1903,  pp-.  £33-241. 


18. 


were  inclined  to  treat  it  with  a more  or  less  good-natured  toler- 
ance, regarding  it  as  a temporary  bubble  on  the  sea  of  politics. 
Before  proceeding  to  a consideration  of  that  election  wherein  the 
Labor  Party  was  to  figure  so  conspicuously,  however,  it  becomes 

necessary  to  turn  aside  for  a moment  to  consider  a certain  court 

1. 

action  known  as  the  faff  Vail  Case,  which  was  to  become  a potent 
political  factor  in  the  next  election. 

During  the  year  1900  the  employees  of  the  faff  Vail  hailway 
Company  called  an  unauthorized  strike  v/hich  developed  considerable 
violence  and  called  into  play  a number  of  illegal  and  doubtful  acts 
such  as  picketing.  In  spite  of  the  adviee  of  the  Company’s  lawyers 
to  the  contrary,  the  General  Manager  brought  suit  for  damages,  not 
against  the  employees  who  had  committed  the  unlawful  acts,  but 
against  the  national  union  to  which  they  belonged, the  Amalgama- 

ted Society  of  Railway  Servants.  Furthermore,  he  insisted  on  taming 

the  case  on  appeal  to  the  highest  court  in  the  land, the  Law 

Lords.  This  body  proceeded  to  hand  down  a very  surprising  decision, 
which  completely  reversed  the  precedent  of  twenty-five  years  and 
practically  nullified  what  had  generally  supposed  to  be  the  will 
of  Parliament  itself,  as  expressed  in  the  legislation  of  1876. 

They  admitted  that  the  union  was  not  a corporate  body;  and  then 
they  proceeded  to  state  that  it  could,  however,  be  sued  in  a cor- 
porate capacity  for  damages  supposedly  caused  by  the  action  of  its 
officers.  " the  Trade  Union could  be  sued  in  a cor- 

porate capacity  for  damages  alleged  to  have  been  caused  by  the 
action  of  its  officers,  not  merely  from  criminal  acts,  but  also 


l.-A.C.426;70-L. J.K.B . -905; 85-L . T.-147 ; 17-T .L .R.-698 ; 65- J.P . -596 ; 
50-W.R.-44. 


•fcv  ’ 1 

* 

. 

* 


. 


* 


19 


from  unlawfully,  though  without  the  slightest  criminality,  causing 

1. 

loss  to  other  persons."  This  was  indeed  a holt  from  the  blue.  At 
one  stroke  it  destroyed  the  immunity  which  had  been  won  with  such 
difficulty  in  1876;  it  jeopardized  the  Trades  Union  funds  and  put 

them  at  the  mercy  of  any  reactionary  court, indeed,  the  union 

implicated  in  the  Taff  Vail  case  was  compelled  to  pay  some  $120,000 
in  actual  damages,  the  whole  costs  amounting  to  a total  of  approxi- 
mately $200,000, ; it  practically  scrapped  the  strike  as  a weapon 

either  of  offense  or  defense;  it  paralyzed  the  activities  of  the 

union  officials,  who  feared  to  act  because  they  might  be  made  per- 

2. 

sonally  liable  for  the  deeds  of  the  unions. 

The  results  of  sueh  a,  momentous  decision  can  scarcely  be  over- 
estimated. It  gave  a rude  jolt  to  the  complacency  of  the  older  and 
better  established  trades  unions  and  jarred  a number  of  others 
loose  from  their  ancient  prejudices  against  the  independent  labor 
movement.  It  converted  the  Labor  Representation  Committee  into  a 
compact  and  powerful  political  unit  by  adding  strength  of  numbers 
to  an  already  abundant  supply  of  energy  and  ability.  By  1902 -5 
the  number  of  affiliated  trades  unions  had  doubled,  and  by  the  end 
of  1906  it  had  been  multiplied  by  three.  It  is  a rare  incentive 
that  acts  more  strongly  than  that  of  self  defense,  and  the  unions 
in  this  crisis  felt  that  they  were  indeed  fighting  for  their  very 
existence.  The  organization,  once  fully  roused,  gave  an  indication 
of  their  potential  strength  in  the  election  Of  1906,  not  only  in 
those  constituencies  where  candidates  of  the  Representation  Commit- 

V. 

tee  were  actually  running,  but  also  in  other  districts,  by  inter- 

1. -Y/ebb,  S.  and  B. -History  of  Trade  Unionism,  p.  600 

2 . -Ibid . t pp .600-604. 


20. 


rogating  candidates  as  to  their  attitude  toward  the  Taff  "Vail  de- 
cision, and  voting  accordingly.  It  may  he  said  without  exaggeration, 
I think,  that  the  Taff  Vail  decision  was  the  chief  factor  in  the 
labor  situation  preceding  the  elections  of  1906.  It  was  Frederic 

Harrison  who  made  the  statement  11  The  working  class  is  the  only 

1. 

class  which  is  not  a class.  It  is  the  nation."  and  the  astonishing 
results  achieved  by  the  awakened  labor  movement  almost  prove  the 
truth  of  his  statement. 

It  must  not  be  overlooked,  however,  that  there  were  other 
factors  which  contributed  to  the  situation.  The  Conservative  Party 
during  its  period  of  power  had  incurred  a great  deal  of  unpopular- 
ity, and  its  move  to  revive  a preferential  tariff  gave  the  Liberals 
a rallying  cry  which  they  did  not  fail  to  avail  themselves  of. 
Moreover,  the  majority  of  the  Liberals  had  apparently  not  noticed 
the  fundamental  change  which  had  occurred  in  the  purposes  and 
methods  of  the  labor  movement,  and  still  professed  to  look  upon  it, 
in  spite  of  the  protests  and  warnings  of  the  labor  men  themselves, 
as  a sort  of  left  wing  of  their  own  party.  There  was  still  a con- 
siderable group  of  Liberal-Labor  men  in  Parliament  who  maintained 
an  attitude  of  independence  toward  the  Labor  Representation  Com- 
mittee group  and  continued  to  vote  with  the  Liberal  Party.  At  any 
rate,  all  of  the  labor  candidates,  whether  of  the  independents  or 
of  the  Liberal-Labor  group  were  thoroughgoing  Free  Traders,  and 
since  the  Liberal  Party  had  staked  everything  on  the  repudiation 
of  protection  at  this  election,  they  refused  to  risk  the  election 
of  Tories  in  a number  of  districts  where  labor  men  were  running  by 
making  it  a three-cornered  fight.  That  this  was  an  important  iac uor 

was  afterwards  pointed  out  by  the  Liberals  themselves,  who  cirew 


. 


21. 


attention  to  the  indisputable  fact  that  of  the  successful  labor 

candidates,  very  few  were  opposed  by  Liberals,  whereas  the  great 

1. 

majority  of  those  who  were  defeated  had  Liberal  opposition.  Indeed, 
one  critic  coined  a striking  phrase  which  no  doubt  had  some  truth 

in  it  when  he  referred  to  the  labor  triumph  as  mere  "driftwood  on 

2. 

the  tide  of  Free  Trade." 

Such,  then,  was  the  situation  immediately  preceding  the  general 
election  of  1906.  It  was  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  the  period 
following  the  South  African  War  had  been  one  of  industrial  depres- 
sion and  widespread  distress.  There  had  been,  for  instance,  in  1905 
a cotton  famine  in  Lancashire  more  serious  serious  than  any  which 

had  occurred  since  the  American  Civil  V/ar,  and  there  had  been  large 

3. 

numbers  of  men  out  of  ?/ork  all  over  the  country.  Heedless  to  say 
the  Labor  Representation  Committee  made  the  most  of  their  opportu- 
nities. They  put  in  the  field  a total  of  fifty  candidates  and  con- 
ducted a vigorous  campaign  in  every  contested  constituency,  appeal- 
ing to  the  people  on  the  basis  of:  protection  of  trade  union  funds 
and  legalization  of  strikes  through  legislation  annulling  the  Taff 
Vail  decision;  free  trade;  a graduated  income  tax;  woman  suffrage; 
nationalization  and  secularization  of  education;  local  government 

home  rule;  relief  of  the  unemployment  situation;  nationalization  of 

4. 

railways;  and  a number  of  other  issues  of  lesser  or  local  import. 
Mr.  J.  Heir  Kardie,  the  leader  of  the  Independent  Labor  Party, 
struck  the  keynote  of  the  labor  campaign  when  he  declared  in  one  of 
his  election  speeches  that  "The  immediate  object  of  the  Labor  Party 


1. -Cf.  an  article  by  L.  A.  Atherley- Jones , II. P.,  in  the  nineteenth 

Century  for  October,  1906,  pp.  576-586. 

2 .  - Ed inbur gfa  R e v i ew  for  October,  1906,  pp.  273-305. 

3. -S.  Brooks,  in  Harper ' s Weekly  for  October  24,  1903,  p.  1698. 

4. -W.  Diack,  in  the  Arena1 2 3 4 for  May,  1906,  pp.  476-480. 


. 


22. 

is  to  create  a driving  force  in  politics  which  will  overcome  the 
inertia  of  politicians  in  regard  to  social  reforms,  and  give  the 
nation  a strong,  true  lead  along  the  paths  which  make  for  national 
righteousness.  To  see  that  children  are  properly  fed  and  cared  for; 
that  the  able  are  given  an  opportunity  to  work;  and  that  comfort  is 
brought  into  the  life  of  the  aged;  are  objects  worth  striving  for. 

These  things  lie  outside  the  domain  of  ordinary  party  politics,  but 

1. 

they  must  be  attended  to  if  the  nation  is  to  be  saved  from  decay." 

To  the  same  man  is  credited  the  statement,  in  a different  connec- 
tion, that  "A  Labor  Party  is  the  logical  and  inevitable  outcome  of 
a popular  suffrage;  the  object  of  such  a party  cannot  be  any  one 
particular  reform  with  the  accomplishment  of  which  the  motive  for 
the  party  would  disappear.  It  is  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  the 

determination  of  the  disinherited  democracy  to  have  government  of 

2. 

the  people  by  the  people  and  for  the  people." 

When  the  smoke  of  battle  had  cleared  away,  it  was  found  that 
the  Labor  Representation  Committee,  which  in  that  same  year  had 
definitely  committed  itself  to  the  name  of  Labor  Party,  and  will 
henceforth  be  referred  to  as  such,  had  succeeded  in  electing  a, 
total  of  twenty-nine  out  of  its  fifty  candidates.  In  addition,  ten 
Liberal -Labor  men  had  been  returned,  and  the  Iliners*  Pederation, 
which,  though  friendly  to  the  Labor  Party,  still  maintained  its  own 
independence  and  conducted  its  own  campaigns,  had  elected  a total 
of  fourteen  representatives;  so  that  the  aggregate  of  labor  members, 
of  all  kinds,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  reached  the  rather  impres- 

1.  -Quo ted  by  W.  Diaek  in  the  Arena  for  May,  1906,  pp.  476-480. 

2. -J.  Keir  Hardie  in  the  nineteenth  Century  for  January, 

1906,  pp.  12-24. 


f 


23. 


1. 


sive  figure  of  fifty-three. 

The  election  was  followed  hy  a perfect  flood  of  comment  in  the 
current  newspapers  and  magazines,  and  as  much  of  it  affords  a 
pretty  fair  index  to  the  attitude  of  the  two  older  parties  besides 
offering  a very  interesting  study,  it  seems  worth  while  to  give 
some  time  to  an  analysis  of  it.  Some  of  it  seems  to  he  mainly  the 
expression  of  the  spontaneous  wrath  called  forth  hy  the  entirely 
unexpected  success  of  a party  which  had  hitherto  been  looked  upon 
with  a rather  tolerant  contempt  as  being  comparatively  harmless. 
That  attitude  seems  particularly  to  have  marked  the  writings  of  the 
Conservative  publicists,  such  remarks  as  the  following  excerpts 
from  an  article  in  Blackwood's  Magazine  being  typical  of  the  more 
extreme  criticism:  "Their  egoism  is  insatiable.  If  they  have  any 
ambition  beyond  legislating  for  the  profit  of  their  own  class,  they 
have  not  yet  revealed  it."  "What  they  demand  is  power  without  res- 
ponsibility." "If  the  Labor  Party  has  its  way,  there  would  be  no 
room  in  the  state  for  any  but  manual  workers."  "Above  all  the 
friends  of  Labor  are  indifferent  to  the  problems  of  empire.  To  them 
the  Civis  Bomanus  makes  no  appeal.  They  will  never  rejoice  that 


1. -Districts  returning  Labor  members:  London  and  environs:  Dept- 
ford, Woolwich,  South  Division  of  West  Ham;  urban  districts:  Bar- 
row-in-Purness , Blackburn,  Bolton,  Bradford,  Chatham,  Halifax, 

East  Division  of  Leeds,  Leicester,  Uorth-East  and  South-West  Div- 
isions of  Manchester,  ITewcastle-on-Tyne,  Uorwich,  Preston,  St. 
Helens,  Sunderland,  Stockport,  West  Division  of  Wolverhampton; 
county  districts:  Barnard  Castle  Division  of  Durham,  Clitheroe, 

Inee,  Hewton,  Westhoughton,  and  Gorton  Divisions  of  Lancashire;Scot- 
land:Dundee,  Blackfriars  Division  of  Glasgow;  Wales:Merthyr  Tydvil. 

Districts  in  which  Labor  candidates  were  defeated:  London  and 
environs:  Croydon;  urban  districts:  Bordesley  and  East  Divisions  of 

Birmingham,  Darlington,  Dewsbury  Gravesend,  Grimsby.  Huddersfield, 
South  Division  of  Leeds,  Kirks dale  and  West  Toxteth  Divisions  of 
Liverpool,  Monmouth  Boroughs,  Portsmouth,  Stockton,  Wakefield,  York; 
county  districts:  Jarrow  Division  of  Durham,  Eccles  Division.of 
Lancashire;  Scotland:  Camlachie  Division  of  Glasgow,  Govan  Division 
of  Lanarkshire;  Ireland:  Worth  Division  of  Belfast. 


24. 


they  are  citizens  of  no  mean  city."  "The  rebellious  natives  of 
Ratal  are  as  dear  to  our  independent  Democrats  as  the  unemployed." 
And  here  is  one  that  seems  to  reveal  the  spirit  of  the  whole  ar- 
ticle: "We  suppose  that  a too  frequent  communication  with  the 

1. 

Liberal  Party  has  corrupted  the  manners  of  a sturdier  time."  There 
is  an  evident  failure  on  the  part  of  this  writer  to  think  twice, 
if,  indeed,  he  has  thought  at  all.  Llany  of  his  statements  are  so 
absurd  as  to  require  no  answer  at  all.  At  best,  his  charges  are 
misleading  half  truths.  The  Labor  candidates  had  repeatedly  denied 
that  they  would  legislate  solely  for  class  interests.  The  charge  of 
coolness  toward  the  empire  is  the  truest  one  that  was  made,  and  yet 
it  was  unfairly  expressed.  The  workers  were  loyal  and  patriotic 
Englishmen,  but  they  regarded  the  imperialistic  ambitions  of  the 
Conservative  Party  as  unjustifiable  chauvinism. 

There  was  much  petty  persecution  Y/orthy  of  our  most  approved 

methods  of  American  partisan  politics, such,  for  instance,  as  the 

attempt  to  discredit  the  Independent  Labor  Party  by  alleging  a 
hostility  toY/ard  religion  among  its  members.  The  Pabian  Society 
members  were  referred  to  as  "Burgesses  of  wjiat  is  known  as  Bohemia”, 

whose  purpose  was  "to  spend  other  people ’s  money  and  dragoon  other 

2. 

people’s  lives".  The  various  organizations  Y/hich  had  combined  for 
the  purpose  of  electing  labor  representatives  were  referred  to  as 
sham  labor  parties.  And  the  difficulties  of  the  Labor  Party  in 
steering  a neutral  course  between  the  critics  are  apparent  when  we 
note  here  a critic  who  attacks  it  as  demanding  solely  class  and 

1 . -Blackwood ’ s magazine , June,  1906,  pp.  844-849. 

2. -H.  Vivian  in  the  Port nightly  Review  for  January,  1906, 

pp.  151-162. 


. 


- 


, 


25. 


1. 

selfish  legislation,  and  there  one  who  says  the  movement  is  all 

right  so  long  as  its  representatives  confine  their  attentions  to 

2. 

social  and  industrial  reform;  here  a critic  who  ridicules  the  idea 
of  manual  workers  representing  it  in  Parliament,  and  there  one  who 

attacks  it  for  allowing  anyone  who  is  not  a manual  worker  to  run 

3. 

on  its  platform;  here  a critic  who  denounces  the  movement  as 

4. 

malignant,  unadulterated  Socialism,  and  there  one  who  reproaches 

5. 

it  with  having  no  program  which  goes  "beyond  that  of  Liberalism; 
and  so  forth. 

Yet  there  was  much  of  the  criticism  which  was  well-founded,  and 
some  of  it  was  positively  constructive.  As  to  the  charge  of  Social- 
ism, certainly  it  is  true  that  of  the  number  elected,  twenty-one 

of  the  Labor  Party  men  were  Socialists,  as  were  six  of  the  Liberal - 

6. 

Labor  group  and  one  of  the  miners.  At  the  same  time,  the  great 
majority  of  writers  agreed  as  to  the  uniformly  high  type  of  ability 
of  the  men,  and  admitted  that  so  far  from  being  mere  noisy  agi- 
tators, they  were  generally  extremely  practical,  business-like, 

and  unrhetorical . Out  of  the  total  group  of  fifty-three,  all  but 

7. 

ten  were  trade  unionists.  Some  of  the  more  thoughtful  students  of 
current  politics  pointed  out  the  fact  that  there  was  no  particular 

reason  for  surprise  that  seven-tenths  of  the  electorate  should 

7. 

have  succeeded  in  electing  fifty-three  representatives. 

1. -Cf.  article  entitled  Simple  Egoism  in  Blackwood's  Magazine 

for  June,  1906,  pp.  844-849. 

2. -Cf.  17.  H.  Mallock's  article  on  Political  Powers  of  Labor 

in  the  nineteenth  Century  for  August,  1906,  pp.  202-214. 

3.  -and  4.-Cf.  B.  Taylor’s  article  on  Laborism  .in  Parliament 

in  the  Fortnightly  Beview  for  June,  1906,  pp.  1115-1130. 

5. -Cf.  H.  Vivian’s  article  on  Pretended  Labor  Parties  in  the 

Fortnightly  Review  for  January,  1906,  pp.  151-162. 

6. -17.  Liack,  op.citl  (see  note  4,  page  21.) 

7.  -Uorth  American  Review  for  April,  1906,  pp.  617-622. 


26. 


The  Liberal  element  were  especially  cautious  and  discriminating 
in  their  criticism,  for  many  of  them,  including  their  leaders, 
still  hoped  for  cooperation  and  aid  from  the  Labor  group,  and 
hesitated  to  offend  them.  Their  arguments,  therefore,  were  all 
directed  toward  promoting  an  alliance  between  the  two  forces.  They 
claimed  that  the  Labor  Party  represented  either  Socialists  or  trade 
unionists,  and  therefore  were  really  not  representative  of  all 
labor,  since  two  million  unionists  could  scarcely  be  called  repre- 
sentative of  one  quarter  of  the  total  population.  They  also  inti- 
mated that  Labor  might  find  it  difficult  to  accomplish  its  ends 
through  legislation,  but  here  they  were  using  a weapon  ?/hich  dan- 
gerously resembled  a boomerang,  for  practically  the  only  alterna- 
tive to  Parliamentary  procedure  was  direct  action.  The  most  serious, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  most  justifiable  charge  brought  forward  by 
the  Liberals,  however,  was  that  the  Labor  Party  in  the  campaign  of 
1906  had  no  definite  program.  The  policies  enumerated  above  in 
connection  with  the  Labor  campaign  were  really  but  a compendium  of 
the  various  platforms  of  the  individual  candidates,  rather  than  a 
definite  platform  on  which  the  Labor  Party  as  a whole  went  to  the 
polls.  Indeed,  the  Labor  Party  particularly  avoided  committing 
itself  to  such  a program  at  that  time,  and  it  probably  displayed 
political  wisdom  in  doing  so.  It  was  still  in  its  formative  period, 
and  a program  clashing  or  coinciding  with  various  elements  in  the 
Liberal  or  Conservative  programs  might  have  alienated  some  of  those 
Labor  Party  exponents  whose  allegiance  had  with  difficulty  been  won 
over  from  the  two  older  parties  by  the  promise  of  absolute  neutral- 
ity and  independence,  and  whose  new  loyalty  was  at  best  a precari- 
ous one.  It  is  true,  therefore,  that  the  Labor  Party  appealed  to 


1 


27. 


the  electorate  rather  on  the  basi3  of  labor  representation  than  on 
a definite  and  distinctive  program,  and  that  their  actual  political 
convictions  did  not  differ  so  very  radically  from  those  of  the 
Liberal  Party. 

There  was  this  important  difference  between  the  position  of  the 
Labor  members  and  that  of  the  Liberals,  however.  Many  of  the 
Liberal  H.P.’s,  and  Conservatives  as  well,  were  playing  a game; 
they  had  made  politics  a career,  and  had  to  fit  their  actual  deeds 
of  legislation  to  the  political  expediency  of  the  times,  rather 
than  to  the  platform  on  which  they  had  been  elected.  The  Labor 
members,  on  the  other  hand,  considered  politics  merely  as  a means 
to  an  end,  and  were  in  deadly  earnest.  Critics  claimed  that  the 
progress  of  social  reform  through  legislation  had  demonstrated  the 
fact  that  a separate  Labor  Party  was  unnecessary;  but,  curiously 
enough,  it  was  generally  the  Labor  members  who  were  largely  instru- 
mental in  forcing  the  Liberal  program  through.  And,  though  the 
programs  of  the  two  parties  might  be  approximately  the  same,  the 
emphasis  was  different.  The  Liberals  emphasized  the  political  as- 
pects; the  Labor  men,  the  social.  Por  instance,  the  Liberal  regime 
of  1906  was  bent  on  pushing  a general  Education  Bill  improving  the 
quality  and  range  of  public  education  ; the  Labor  members  were 
particularly  insistent  on  what  was  apparently  the  minor  detail  of 
providing  free  meals  for  school  children.  Indeed,  many  of  the  more 
radical  Liberals  themselves  conceded  the  importance  of  this  point, 
as  is  evidenced  in  such  remarks  as  the  following  by  C . P.  Masterman 
in  the  nineteenth  Century  for  November,  1906:  "The  laborer  in  the 
country  wants  direct  access  to  the  land.  The  workman  in  the  town 
wants  better  houses;  more  leisure;  a fairer  chance  for  his  children; 


' 


28 


some  security  against  unemployment  and  old  age.  I think  that  if  the 
Liberal  Party  fails  to  satisfy  these  demands  it  will  dwindle  and 
presently  fall  into  impotence,  as  the  Liberal  Parties  on  the  Con- 
tinent have  dwindled  and  fallen  into  impotence;  because  they  failed 

1. 

rightly  to  interpret  the  signs  of  the  times." 

All  this  was  mainly  a priori  argument,  of  course.  By  the  end 
of  1906,  when  a year  of  Parliamentary  experience  with  the  new 
party  had  passed,  the  tenor  of  criticism  had  changed  somewhat. 

The  conciliatory  attitude  of  the  Liberals  had  disappeared  com- 
pletely, once  they  had  become  convinced  of  the  determination  of 
the  Labor  men  to  be  really  independent,  and  many  of  them  became 
nearly  as  bitter  toward  the  new  element  as  the  Conservatives. 

Their  early  claim  that  there  was  dissension  in  the  Labor  ranks, 
because  one-third  of  the  Labor  members  refused  to  follow  the  lead 
of  J.  Keir  Eardie,  was  really  not  true,  however,  for  the  Liberal- 
Labor  group  had  never  pretended  to  yield  allegiance  to  the  Labor 
Party  group.  It  is  true  that  a bit  of  acrimonious  debate  occurred 
between  these  two  wings  over  the  claim  of  the  latter  to  the  ex- 
clusive designation  of  Labor  members.  Yet  the  bitter  charge  of 
disloyalty  hurled  at  the  Labor  men  by  the  Liberals  was  rather 
absurd,  considering  the  fact  that  the  former  had  never  professed 
allegiance  to  the  Liberals,  and  had,  indeed,  on  the  contrary, 
repeatedly  repudiated  all  party  connections.  The  Labor  Party  men 
did  succeed  in  making  things  very  uncomfortable  for  the  Liberal- 
Labor  group,  however,  for  by  constantly  threatening  a division  on 

important  questions  and  thereby  forcing  the  Liberal-Labor  men  and 
cabinet  members  to  choose  between  their  allegiance  to  the  cause 

of  Labor  and  their  loyalty  to  the  Qovernnent,  they  wielded _a_pg^rgy 
1 .-nineteenth  Century  for  ITovember,  1906,  pp.  706-718. 


very  great  influence.  Indeed,  Liberal-Labor ism  practically  went 
out  of  existence  as  a separate  political  entity  with  this  Parlia- 
ment, for  by  the  end  of  the  year,  the  Labor  Party  members  had 
succeeded  in  bridging  the  gap  which  had  separated  the  two  branches. 
An  appraisal  of  the  work  of  Liberal-Laborism  is  a difficult  matter; 
on  the  one  hand,  the  Liberal-Labor  men  had  been  consistent  workers 
for  the  amendment  of  laws  relating  to  trades  unions,  for  the  right 
of  combination  by  workmen,  for  statutory  regulation  of  coal  mines, 
factories,  and  railways,  for  workmen's  compensation,  for  the  crea- 
tion of  a Labor  Department  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  for  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Labor  Gazette . for  the  increase  of  local  government- 
al power;  on  the  other  hand,  such  an  influential  leader  as  Chamber- 
lain  had  declared  in  1900,  when  the  Liberal-Labor  group  was 
practically  the  only  labor  element  in  Parliament,  that  labor 

representation  had  done  practically  nothing  to  further  the  cause 

E. 

of  social  reform.  And  certainly  it  was  partially  dissatisfaction 
with  the  results  so  far  achieved  that  led  to  the  formation  of  an 
independent  labor  group. 

The  actual  achievements  of  the  Labor  Party  group  in  Parliament 
were  even  more  surprising  than  might  have  been  expected  from  their 
astonishing  show  of  strength  at  the  polls.  There  were  two  reasons 
for  this  fact:  first,  the  club  held  over  the  Government  by  reason 
of  the  Liberal-Labor  group  (because  of  the  Government’s  desire  to 
maintain  the  Liberal-Labor  group  intact,  the  Labor  Party  forced  a 
division  whenever  possible  on  issues  which  especially  concerned 
them,  and  in  a number  of  important  cases  succeeded  in  swinging  the 

1. -B.  Taylor  in  the  Fortnightly  Review  for  January,  1906 

pp.  151-16E. 

2. -C.  F.  llasterman  in  the  nineteenth  Century  ,pp  .pit . ( 3ee  notel,p..88 


: 


. 


. 


50. 


Government  to  the  Labor  side,  because  of  a fear  of  a split  in  the 
Liberal-Labor  ranks);  and  second,  the  fact  that  many  of  the  Liberal 
members  had  committed  themselves  during  the  course  of  the  campaign 
to  the  labor  side  of  important  issues.  Foremost  among  these  was,  of 
course,  the  question  of  the  legal  position  of  trades  unions.  She 
Government  brought  in  a Trades  Disputes  Act  which  proved  utterly 
unacceptable  to  the  Labor  members,  and,  to  its  astonishment,  found 
itself  forced  to  change  the  bill  qnite  radically,  member  after 
member  of  the  Liberal  majority  explaining  that  he  had  promised  his 
constituency  to  pass  a bill  which  would.be  satisfactory  to  Labor. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  go  into  the  details  of  this  bill;  suffice  it 
to  say  that  it  restored  the  immunity  which  had  supposedly  been 
conferred  by  the  legislation  of  1871-76,  by  declaring  that  no  civil 
action  shall  be  entertained  against  a Trade  Union  in  respect  of  any 
wrongful  act  committed  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  Union. 

The  Labor  members  almost  succeeded  in  forcing  through  a bill  to 
provide  free  meals  for  school  children,  also.  Ordinarily  the  Labor 
men  worked  with  the  Government,  but  it  was  always  on  the  basis  of  a 
bargain,  in  which  they  never  failed  to  get  their  money’s  worth. 

They  were  among  the  most  active  members  in  the  House,  bringing  in 
bills  for  old  age  pensions  to  be  paid  from  state  funds,  trades 
union  rates  for  Government  employees,  recognition  of  trades  unions 
by  all  Government  departments,  political  enfranchisement  of  women, 
prevention  of  eviction  of  strikers  from  houses  owned  by  employers, 
classing  as  undesirable  aliens  imported  to  break  strikes,  Y/orkmen's 
compensation,  income  tax  reform,  revision  of  procedure  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  taxation  of  land  values  in  Scotland,  nationalization  of 
canals,  better  conditions  for  Postal  servants,  and  so  forth.  Their 


' 


31. 

efficiency  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  Parliamentary  Commit- 
tee of  the  Trades  Union  Congress,  which  had  continued  its  lobbying 
right  down  to  1906,  in  spite  of  such  labor  representation  as  there 
had  been,  finally  ceased  its  operations,  ho  doubt  the  Labor  members 
rendered  themselves  rather  obnoxious  to  some  of  the  older  members 
by  their  lack  of  respect  for  precedents,  and  by  their  extreme  de- 
mocracy, but  it  was  but  natural  to  expect  something  of  that  kind. 

A Tory  critic,  for  instance,  remarked  of  a certain  Labor  member, 

"When  he  has  been  a little  longer  in  the  House,  he  will  doubtless 

1. 

discover  that  tradition  is  nine-tenths  of  life".  However,  in  spite 
of  obstacles  and  lack  of  experience,  the  Party  succeeded  in  making 
a very  creditable  record  in  its  first  session  in  the  House  of 
Commons . 


1 . -Blackwood T s Ivlagas  ine  , op.cit.,(see  llote  1,  p.  25). 


. 


, 


' 

. 

. 


CHAPTER  II.  The  Intermediate  Period:  1906  to  1914. 


During  the  eight  years  following  the  advent  of  the  Labor  Party 
in  English  politics  in  1906,  it  can  scarcely  he  said  that  the  new 
group  fulfilled  either  the  best  hopes  of  its  advocates  or  the  worst 
fears  of  its  opponents.  A great  many  people  apparently  vie  re  looking 
for  the  immediate  inauguration  of  the  Milennium,  or  something  equal- 
ly revolutionary,  and  the  fact  that  the  Labor  Party  soon  settled 
down  into  much  the  same  humdrum  parliamentary  round  as  the  t?/o  older 
parties  was  a great  disappointment  to  the  more  radical  reformers. 
Politically  the  period  was  not  one  of  tremendous  activity,  with  the 
exception  of  the  two  general  elections  of  1910.  The  Labor  group, 
through  influential  in  the  passage  of  the  Trades  Disputes  Act,  the 
Miners’  Eight  Hours  Act,  the  Trades  Board  Act,  and  other  reforma- 
tive legislation,  failed  to  force  its  will  on  the  House  of  Commons. 
And  in  spite  of  their  unflagging  energy  and  activity,  it  really 
seems  as  if  their  power  and  influence  declined  somewhat  as  the  fear 
inspired  by  their  unexpected  show  of  strength  in  1906  gradually 
abated. 

The  momentum  of  their  early  success,  however,  carried  them 
successfully  through  several  bye-elections  before  the  reaction  set 
in.  The  new  party  waged  w ar  relentlessly  and  without  discrimination 
against  both  the  older  groups.  A bye-election  at  Jarrow  in  1907 
resulted  in  the  election  of  the  Labor  candidate,  Pete  Curran,  in 
place  of  a Liberal.  And  again  in  1909,  in  the  Attercliffe  Division 
of  Sheffield,  the  Labor  man,  J.  Pointer,  replaced  a Liberal.  In  the 
same  year,  J.  0.  Hancock,  Labor,  w as  elected  for  the  constituency 


33. 


of  Mid-Derbyshire,  which  had  formerly  been  Liberal.  In  this  latter 
case,  however,  it  is  but  fair  to  state  that  the  Liberal  Party 
entered  no  candidate.  While  it  is  true  that  there  were  many  more 
bye-elections  in  which  the  Labor  Party  was  not  successful,  yet 
these  victories  are  significant  because  they  register  a reversal  of 
the  vote  of  the  constituency  in  the  last  general  election;  and 
because  they  demonstrate  the  force  of  the  first  onslaught  of  the 
Labor  Party.  They  are  further  important  in  that  they  occurred  while 
the  movement  as  a whole  was  starting  on  a period  of  decline.  It 
was  not  until  1912  that  a Labor  seat  was  lost  at  a bye-election, 
the  loss  occurring  in  the  constituency  of  Hanley.  The  years  inter- 
vening between  the  elections  of  1910  and  the  war  period  were  par- 
ticularly unfruitful  for  Labor  candidates  as  far  as  bye-elections 
were  concerned.  The  country  sustained  somewhat  of  a shock,  however, 
in  a bye-election  occurring  in  the  Colne  Valley  Division  of  York- 
shire in  July  1907,  which  resulted  in  the  choice  of  Victor  Grayson, 
an  unattached  Socialist. 

By  the  end  of  the  first  year  of  parliamentary  experience,  the 
Labor  Party  group  had  effected  a working  agreement  with  the  remnant 
of  the  Liberal -Labor  group  whereby  all  the  Labor  forces  in  the 
House  cooperated  with  a fair  degree  of  harmony.  They  held  monthly 
meetings  to  determine  the  basis  of  common  action  on  labor  questions 
and  agreed  not  to  oppose  each  others'  candidates.  The  Party  consist 
ently  championed  the  labor  side  of  every  question,  and  in  cases  not 
involving  labor  interests,  took  an  independent  position.  In  its 
direct  appeal  to  the  people,  however,  the  Labor  Party  was  at  a 
decided  disadvantage  in  those  early  days,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
they  controlled  no  daily  paper  of  their  own  while  the  press  of  the 


34 


country  was  largely  directed  against  them.  Consequently,  the  Labor 
men  were  under  the  necessity  of  spreading  their  propaganda  by  word 
of  mouth,  which  they  proceeded  to  do  with  great  energy  and  fervor, 
holding  thousands  of  public  meetings,  and  even  utilizing  the  street 
corners.  Uor  did  they  allow  their  activities  to  lapse  after  the 
election  of  1906.  Meanwhile,  the  Conservatives,  who  had  at  first 
welcomed  the  independent  Labor  movement,  as  injuring  the  Liberals 
only,  began  to  discover  that  there  ¥/as  desertion  in  their  own  ranks 
as  well.  They  therefore  took  up  the  challenge  of  the  Labor  propa- 
ganda, and  prepared  to  meet  them  on  their  own  ground.  Accordingly, 
they  sent  out  all  over  the  country  what  were  called  propaganda  vans, 

small  houses  on  wheels, in  which  the  Conservative  speakers 

visited  every  nook  and  corner  of  the  land  and  addressed  the  people 

in  hopes  of  counteracting  the  effects  produced  by  the  Labor  soeak- 

1. 

ers.  Indeed,  the  winter  of  1907-1908  was  a time  of  widespread  in- 
terest in  Labor  policies  and  Socialistic  doctrines. 

One  of  the  most  significant  events  during  this  period  was  the 
final  affiliation  of  the  Miners’  Federation  with  the  Labor  Party. 
This  group,  one  of  the  strongest  of  the  industrial  groups  in  the 
country,  was  really  the  eraliest  to  secure  representation  in  Parlia- 
ment, both  Burt  and  Macdonald,  the  earliest  Labor  members,  having 
been  elected  by  miners’  organizations .From  that  time  on,  the  miners 
had  insisted  on  maintaining  a separate  political  organization,  and 
had  run  their  own  candidates.  Even  after  the  formation  of  the  sup- 
posedly all-inclusive  Labor  Representation  Committee  in  1900,  the 
Miners  had  insisted  on  retaining  their  independence.  The  movement 

l.-E.  Porritt,  The  British  Socialist  Labor  Party,  in  the 
Political  Science  Quarterly  for  September,  1908. 


35 


for  federation  with  the  Labor  Party  began  within  the  miners'  organ- 
ization itself.  It  grew  slowly  at  first,  probably  because  the 
miners  had  been  so  successful  in  their  political  efforts,  but  the 
election  of  1906,  demonstrating  the  remarkable  strength  of  a com- 
paratively united  labor  movement,  gave  a decided  impetus  to  the 
movement  for  affiliation,  and  the  project  finally  achieved  success 
in  the  annual  conference  of  the  Federation  at  Chester,  in  1908,  the 
vote  on  the  question  being  215,137  to  168,294.  There  was  at  this 
time,  however,  a total  of  fourteen  miners'  representatives  who  had 
been  elected  independently  of  the  Labor  Party  in  1906,  and  on 
account  of  them,  the  Federation  in  affiliating  stipulated  that  these 
men  should  not  be  called  on  to  sign  the  party  constitution  except 
in  case  of  another  general  election.  They  agreed,  however,  that 
should  any  candidates  run  in  bye-elections,  preceding  the  next 
general  election,  such  candidates  would  be  required  to  sign  the 
constitution.  The  election  of  J.  0.  Hancock,  mentioned  above, 
marked  the  first  success  of  the  miners  after  their  affiliation  with 
the  Labor  Party. 

Some  of  the  older  representatives  of  the  miners  had  so  long 
cooperated  with  the  Liberal  Party  that  such  action  on  the  part  of 
the  Federation  was  bound  to  develop  trouble.  The  matter  came  to  a 
head  in  1909,  when  the  Federation  notified  its  representatives  that 
if  they  desired  reelection  they  must  sign  the  Labor  Party  Constitu- 
tion. Burt,  Fenwick,  and  Wilson,  three  of  the  best  known  and  most 
influential  of  the  labor  M.P.'s,  refused  to  do  so.  Burt  had  been  in 
the  House  continuously  since  1874,  Fenwick  since  1885,  and  Wilson 
since  1892,  and  to  cast  off  these  men  nov/  because  of  their  refusal 
to  sign  the  Labor  Party  Constitution  seemed  like  the  grossest  in- 


■ 

, 


. 


36. 


gratitude.  Therefore,  in  spite  of  thejr  insubordination,  these  men 
received  the  loyal  support  of  their  constituencies  in  the  elections 
of  1910,  and  were  returned  to  Parliament,  where  they  continued 
their  association  with  the  Labor  Party,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
they  v/ere  thence forv/ard  officially  Liberals. 

Another  event  of  similar  import  was  the  final  extension  of  the 
Labor  Party  activities  into  Scotland.  The  Scottish  Labor  Party  had 
preceded  the  British  organization  in  point  of  time,  but  since  1900 
had  accomplished  comparative  little.  There  was  a v/idespread  feeling 
that  the  labor  movement  should  be  united  throughout  the  Kingdom, 
and  for  that  reason  many  desired  that  the  stronger  group  should 
affiliate  local  labor  organizations  in  Scotland.  However,  relations 
betv/een  the  two  parties  v/ere  not  all  that  might  be  wished,  and 
because  of  the  delicacy  of  the  situation,  the  British  party  for  a 
long  time  refrained  from  invading  the  territory  and  jurisdiction  of 
the  other  group.  Finally,  in  1909,  the  difficulty  was  settled 
through  the  action  of  the  Scottish  Labor  Party  in  officially  decree- 
ing its  own  dissolution.  The  southern  party  then  proceeded  to 
affiliate  the  constituent  societies  of  the  Scottish  party,  and  the 
labor  movement  had  finally  achieved  unity  throughout  the  island. 

Perhaps  there  was  no  field  of  operations  in  which  the  Labor 
Party  met  with  less  success  and  approval  than  that  of  foreign  re- 
lations. At  the  very  outset  of  their  history  they  had  strenuously 
opposed  the  Boer  T.7ar,  and  they  did  not  hesitate  to  do  anything  in 
their  pov/er  to  embarrass  the  Government  when  they  felt  that  its 
designs  v/ere  at  all  imperialistic  or  unworthy.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  warmly  supported  any  movement  promising  to  strengthen  inter- 
national peace  and  to  make  war  impossible.  The  Party  had  officially 


' • 


- 


37 


affiliated  with  the  International  Socialist  and  Labor  bureau  in 
1904,  and  had  been  represented  at  each  of  its  conferences  since. 
Every  effort  was  made  to  combat  the  growing  undercurrent  of  hostil- 
ity between  England  and  Germany  which  was  beginning  to  make  itself 
felt  at  this  time.  Resolutions  were  exchanged  in  1908  with  the 
Social  Democratic  Party  of  Germany  deprecating  the  possibility  of 
war,  and  again  in  the  following  year  there  was  a friendly  exchange 
of  opinion  between  the  two  groups  on  the  question  of  naval  disarm- 
ament. Another  matter  which  raised  quite  a furor  throughout  the 
country,  though  perhaps  really  of  small  importance,  was  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Party  tov/ard  the  proposed  visit  of  the  Czar  of  Russia 
to  England,  The  Labor  leaders  on  the  floor  of  Parliament,  through 
their  pamphlets  and  publications,  and  in  specially  arranged  protest 
meetings,  registered  their  strenuous  disapproval  of  the  exchange  of 
civilities  with  the  head  of  a nation  so  flagrantly  autocratic  as 
Russia  was  at  that  time.  I/hether  or  not  their  protest  was  ethically 
justifiable,  it  certainly  v/as  not  expedient,  for  the  country  at 
large  resented  such  an  attempt  as  calculated  to  disturb  the  friend- 
ly relations  existing  between  the  two  countries. 

In  spite  of  the  difficulties  and  failures  and  indiscreations  of 
the  new  party  in  its  first  Parliament,  however,  it  is  a pleasure  to 
record  the  opinion  of  such  a well-known  publicist  as  mr.  i'.  P. 
O'Connor,  M.P.,  as  follov/s:  The  Labor  Party  has  profoundly  influ- 
enced the  present  Louse  of  Commons  more  than  it  realizes  itself,  it 
is  the  sense  that  there  is  this  power  in  the  background, discon- 
tented, independent,  hostile, that  drives  the  Government,  and 

that  compels  it  always  to  keep  legislation  at  the  high  speed  v/hich 
it  had  reached  at  the  present  moment.  I have  my  doubts  v/hether  Old 


38. 


Age  pensions  would  have  been  introduced  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
existence  of  this  Party;  the  gift  has  not  been  accepted  with  any 

special  grace  by  the  Labor  men;  but  it  is  they,  nevertheless,  who 

1. 

probably  forced  it  from  the  hands  of  the  Government." 

Probably  the  most  important  event  in  the  life  of  the  Labor 
Party  during  this  time  was  what  is  known  as  the  Osborne  Judgment. 
Walter  Y.  Osborne,  a member  of  the  Amalgamated  Society  of  Hailway 
Servants,  and  a man  who  had  achieved  some  prominence  in  his  local 
union,  had  long  objected  to  the  compulsory  Parliamentary  levy 
because  he  felt  that  the  money  so  secured  was  used  to  further  the 
Socialist  cause,  which  he  strongly  opposed.  Finding  himself  unable 
to  interfere  with  the  course  of  events  within  the  local  union,  he 
at  last  consulted  a number  of  lawyers  concerning  the  matter,  and, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  advised  him  against  the  proceeding, 
brought  suit  for  injunction  against  the  union  to  prevent  it  from 
using  its  funds  for  political  purposes,  contending  the  illegality 
of  such  action.  Osborne  lost  his  case  in  the  Chancery  Court,  but 
he  took  it  to  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  there  the  decision  of  the 
lower  court  v/as  reversed.  The  union  then  appealed  the  case  to  the 

Law  Lords,  which  confirmed  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals, 

2. 

thus  leaving  the  final  victory  with  Osborne.  The  case  was  first 
instituted  on  July  22,  1908,  and  the  final  decision  was  rendered  in 
December,  1909.  Among  the  points  settled  in  the  final  decision  were 
the  following:  that  henceforth  trades  unions  were  to  be  considered 
to  be  corporate  bodies;  that  as  such  they  could  not  do  anything  for 
which  they  were  not  incorporated;  that  the  Trades  Onion  Act  of  1876 

1.  -Labor  Part?;  Leaflet  Ho.  1 - Labor  and  PoliticsT" 

2.  -Osborne  vs.  Amalgamated  Society  of  Hailway  servants, 

L.  R.,  Ap.  Cases  87,-  1910. 


. 


39. 

defined  such  activities;  and  that  political  action  was  not  among 
such  activities,  and  could  not,  therefore,  "be  practiced. 

The  Osborne  case  was  by  no  means  a one-sided  matter#  there  was , 
indeed,  much  to  be  said  on  either  side.  In  explanation  of  the  de- 
cision it  should  be  made  clear  that  the  law  merely  interprets  the 
surface  language  of  documents,  without  trying  to  interpret  the 
meaning  Parliament  might  have  had  in  its  original  formulation  of 
them.  Furthermore,  the  conception  of  a corporation  had  gradually 
changed  the  nineteenth  Century.  It  had  been  the  theory  originally 
that  a corporation  is  a persona  f icta  which  could  only  be  created 
by  a superior  body.  So  many  associations  had  sprung  up,  however, 
with  all  the  characteristics  and  privileges  of  corporations,  and 
yet  lacking  the  official  act  of  incorporation,  that  it  is  small 
wonder  that  the  courts  should  say  that  they  should  be  regarded  as 
corporations.  The  situation  was  doubtless  affected  also  by  the 
theories  of  the  English  jurist  Maitland,  in  his  History  of  English 
Law  (written  in  collaboration  with  Sir  Frederick  Pollock)  and  his 
Constitutional  History  of  England. 

It  must  be  admitted,  too,  that  two  of  the  three  judges  partici- 
pating in  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  had  been,  but  a 
short  time  before,  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  Liberals  of 
strong  popular  sympathies.  It  was  argued  that  the  Trades  Union  Act 
of  1906  had  rendered  the  unions  immune  from  all  actions  of  wrong, 
either  direct  or  through  their  officials,  and  that  such  dangerous 
liberty  could  not  be  expected  to  attach  to  any  activity  which  a 
union  might  take  up.  The  act  simply  went  too  far,  and  it  v/as  but 
natural  that  the  courts  would  intervene  to  limit  its  scope.  Some  of 
justices  also  declared  that  the  act  of  signing  the  Party  Constitu- 


40 


tion  was  contrary  to  public  policy  in  that  it  bound  the  individual 
to  vote  in  accordance  with  the  dictates  of  the  group  rather  than 
according  to  his  own  best  judgment.  They  held  that  such  an  agree- 
ment amounted  to  a practical  disfranchisement  of  the  minority. 
Objection  to  the  Labor  M.P.  was  also  raised  on  the  ground  that  he 
represented  only  his  own  trade  union  rather  than  the  whole  consti- 
tuency for  which  he  was  elected.  Labor  Party  discipline,  however, 
though  formally  more  binding  than  that  of  the  other  two  parties, 
v/as  found  to  be,  in  reality,  no  more  so.  It  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand why  a Labor  member  did  not  represent  the  Liberal  and  Conser- 
vative people  in  his  constituency  at  least  as  well  as  the  Liberal 
member  represented  the  Labor  and  Conservative  voters  in  his  district. 
And  surely  public  policy  is  a rather  indefinite  basis  for  a legal 
charge. 

The  Act  of  1876,  around  which  the  controversy  raged,  had  de- 
fined a trade  union  in  section  16  as  "any  combination,  whether 
temporary  or  permanent,  for  regulating  the  relations  between  work- 
men and  masters,  or  between  w orkmen  and  workmen,  or  between  masters 

and  masters,  or  for  imposing  restrictive  conditions  on  the  conduct 

1. 

of  an^  trade  or  business."  The  main  contention  on  which  the  Osborne 
Judgment  was  based  v/as  that  Parliament,  in  passing  the  Act  of  1876, 
had  intended  to  make  a full  and  complete  definition  of  trades 
unions,  and  that  consequently  any  action  not  falling  within  the 
category  of  functions  prescribed  by  the  Act  was  forbidden  to  such 
unions.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Act  makes  no  mention  of  poli- 
tical action  on  the  part  of  unions,  and  therefore,  by  a strict 
interpretation  of  the  law,  such  action  was  illegal.  And  yet  at  the 

1 . -Webb , -History  pf  Trade  Unionism,  p.  617. 


. 


41. 


very  time  when  the  much-discussed  Act  was  being  passed  there  were 
two  Labor  members  in  the  House,  and  one  of  these,  Burt,  was  being 
paid  for  his  services  by  union  funds.  Surely  if  Parliament  had  in- 
tended to  exclude  political  action  from  the  privileges  of  trades 
unions  it  would  not  have  overlooked  such  a situation  as  that*  In- 
deed, in  their  history  preceding  1876  the  unions  had  exercised 
many  functions  in  addition  to  those  mentioned  in  the  Act,  without 
objectionon  the  part  of  the  Government.  As  far  back  as  the  time  of 
the  Chartist  agitation,  some  unions  had  constituted  themselves 
employers  of  labor,  and  had  taxed  their  members  in  order  to  keep 
the  work  going;  others  had  organized  a political  federation  for  the 
purpose  of  supporting  Chartism*  and  trades  unions  had  been  by  no 
means  insignificant  organizations  then.  Had  Parliament  intended  to 
render  such  acts  illegal  it  was  inexcusably  negligent  in  failing  to 
mention  them  at  all.  Moreover,  for  more  than  thirty  years,  from  the 
time  of  the  passage  of  the  Act  down  to  the  Osborne  Judgment,  the 
unions  had  exercised,  without  objection,  many  functions  in  addition 
to  those  specifically  allowed.  Indeed,  so  deeply  rooted  had  become 
the  tradition  of  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  unions  that 
the  legal  experts  first  consulted  by  Osborne  were,  as  I have  said, 
emphatic  in  their  belief  that  he  had  no  case;  and  it  was  on  prece- 
dent that  the  Court  of  Chancery  decided  the  case  against  him. 

Approaching  the  question  from  another  angle,  the  Labor  men 
argued  that  the  Court  was  construing  the  Act  with  undue  strictness. 
Even  if  it  were  to  be  conceded,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
Parliament  had  intended  in  1876  to  make  an  exclusive  and  inclusive 
catalog  of  the  approved  functions  of  trades  unions,  it  was  still 
open  to  question  whether  politics  might  not  legitimately  be  con- 


■ 


■ 


. 


■ 


42. 


sidered  as  a means  to  regulating  industrial  conditions.  The  Courts 
apparently  gave  but  little  consideration  to  the  contention,  however. 
In  answer  to  the  objection  to  the  party  solidarity  clause  of  the 
Constitution,  the  Labor  men  pointed  out  the  fact  that  in  several 
instances,  such  as  the  Education,  Temperance,  and  Finance  bills, 
some  Party  members  had  voted  in  opposition  to  the  majority,  and 
had  not  been  punished.  And  as  for  the  Parliamentary  levy  on  the 
trades  union  members,  the  Court  was  reminded  that  since  the  Govern- 
ment made  no  provision  for  the  payment  of  Members  of  Parliament, 
Labor  representatives,  having  no  independent  fortune,  would  be 
absolutely  excluded  except  as  their  constituencies  paid  them  a 
salary  at  least  sufficient  to  take  care  of  their  ordinary  living 
expenses.  Moreover,  when  the  financial  policy  of  the  Labor  Party 
had  first  been  formulated,  expert  legal  opinion,  almost  without 
exception,  sanctioned  it.  Trades  unions  could  scarcely  be  expected 
to  test  every  doubtful  action  and  decide  it  by  costly  court  proce- 
dure; delimitation  of  union  functions  should  be  the  province  of 
Parliament,  not  of  the  Courts.  Nor  was  it  possible  strictly  to 
separate  political  and  industrial  functions;  they  were  very  often 
combined,  as  in  social  legislation. 

The  Osborne  case  is  especially  peculiar  in  that  it  seems  to 
present  three  sides  rather  than  two . The  complainant,  Osborne, 
seems  to  have  occupied  a position  independent  ana  about  half  way 
between  those  of  the  unions  and  the  courts.  It  is  a matter  of  great 
difficulty  to  get  at  the  exact  truth  in  a case  in  which  feeling  ran 
so  high  and  charges  and  counter  charges  flew  so  bewilderingly  back 
and  forth,  and  I shall  not  attempt  to  state  the  truth  of  the  matter; 
but  it  seems  but  just  at  least  to  consider  the  position  of  Osborne 


J 

y 


C 


/ 


1 


« 


' 


, 


V. 


45. 


1. 

as  he  states  it  himself,  for,  whether  or  not  he  was  merely  a tool 
in  the  hands  of  the  capitalists,  his  position  was  certainly  a 
palusible  one  which  probably  represented  the  convictions  of  many 
an  ardent  and  loyal  trade  unionist.  The  Amalgamated  Society  of 
Railway  Servants  had  been  one  of  the  earliest  of  the  large  unions 
to  affiliate  with  the  Labor  Party,  but  Mr.  Richard  Bell,  who  had 
been  elected  to  Parliament  as  one  of  its  representatives  in  1900 
had  refused  in  1906  to  sign  the  Constitution  of  the  Party  because 

of  its  Socialistic  tendencies.  The  Party,  of  course,  refused  to 

2. 

endorse  him,  but  there  v/as  strong  dissenting  opinion  as  to  its 
action  within  the  Union,  and  among  the  objectors  v/as  Osborne.  The 
solidarity  rule  of  the  Parliamentary  Party  v/as  also  resented.  But 
Osborne  and  his  friends,  though  a by  no  means  inconsiderable  group, 
were  a minority  in  their  Union,  and  were  therefore  helpless  to 
interfere.  The  majority  were  intolerant  with  those  v/ho  did  not 
agree  with  them,  and  threatened  to  expel  non-conforming  members 
and  to  confiscate  their  benefits,  which  they  were  undoubtedly  in  a 
position  to  do,  if  they  chose,  necessarily  such  a threat  gave  the 
majority  a strangle  hold  on  the  others,  for  a man  v/ill  think  a long 
time  before  he  v/ill  forfeit  the  savings  of  a lifetime.  Osborne 
finally  determined  that  in  spite  of  the  difficulties  and  the  un- 
popularity that  he  realized  v/ould  attend  such  a course,  the  situa- 
tion was  such  that  he  must  do  whatever  he  could  to  remedy  it. 

Court  action,  however,  v/as  a costly  procedure,  and  since  he  had 
no  money,  he  had  first  to  raise  the  necessary  funds  through  a news- 
paper appeal.  The  money  v/as  forthcoming  when  he  had  made  clear  his 

1. -17.  V.  Osborne,  My  Case.  London,  Eveleigh  Bash,  1910. 

2. -  He  v/as  reelected,  hov/ever,  as  a Liberal-Labor  candidate. 


. 

' 


■ 


44. 


case.  He  declared  that  the  trades  unions  were  not  really  voluntary 
organizations , and  that  the  political  methods  used  forced  a great 
many  of  the  members  who  were  Liberals  or  Conservatives,  or  others 
who  were  bitterly  opposed  to  Socialism,  to  contribute  to  a cause 
which  they  abhorred.  The  Party  menifestoes,  he  claimed,  were  clear- 
ly Socialistic,  and  the  group  was  represented  in  the  Socialist 
Internationale.  Majority  rule  was  all  right  in  its  own  sphere,  but 

V 

that  sphere  must  not  be  extended  to  include  matters  of  religion  or 
principle.  On  these  bases  Osborne  made  his  appeal  and  won  his  case. 
The  trades  unionists,  of  course,  attacked  him  bitterly,  and  charged 
him  with  being  a tool  in  the  hands  of  the  employers;  they  claimed 
that  capitalists  furnished  the  necessary  funds  wherewith  to  carry 
on  the  case.  On  the  other  hand,  Osborne  offers  to  submit  proof  as 
to  the  source  of  every  penny  of  money  he  received;  and  so  the 
matter  stands. 

It  seemed  at  first  that  a more  serious  blow  could  scarcely  have 
been  aimed  at  the  political  aspirations  of  Labor  than  that  involved 
in  the  Osborne  Judgment.  It  invalidated  the  parliamentary  levy, 
which  was  the  essential  basis  of  the  political  movement.  Hot  only 
that;  it  rendered  illegal,  if  the  decision  was  to  be  interpreted 
strictly,  a great  number  of  other  activities  which  the  unions  had 
undertaken.  The  activities  of  the  Trades  Councils  and  the  Trades 
Union  Congress  would  have  to  stop.  The  educational  interests  of  the 
unions,  their  scholarship  funds  for  Buskin  College,  and  so  forth, 
and  many  other  perfectly  innocent  and  beneficial  activities  were 
technically  illegal . Osborne  himself  had  claimed  that  the  decision 
would  affect  only  the  political  activities,  but  if  the  judgmend  is 
to  be  construed  as  strictly  as  it  had  construed  the  Act  of  1876, 


45. 


all  these  other  functions  would  have  to  he  declared  unlawful.  As  to 
the  actual  results  in  the  months  and  years  immediately  following 
the  event,  there  does  not  seem  to  he  evident  any  very  serious  cur- 
tailment in  the  activities  of  the  trades  unions.  As  to  the  financial 
situation  of  the  Lahoi*  moevment,  there  seems  to  he  some  difference 
of  opinion*,  Oshorne  claimed  that  the  contributions  of  his  own  union 
fell  off  greatly,  while  the  Labor  men  declared  that  the  voluntary 
contributions  were  entirely  satisfactory.  However  that  may  have 
been,  the  receipts  of  the  Parliamentary  fund  of  the  Party  do  not 

1. 

indicate  any  very  great  falling  off,  as  the  following  figures  show: 


Income  for  Quarter  ending 

Pounds 

s . 

d. 

September  30,  1908 

581 

19 

March  31,  1909 

1406 

10 

6 

June  30,  1909 

1298 

7 

6 

Osborne  Judgment,  December,  1909 
March  31,  1910 

789 

13 

11 

March  31 , 1911 

963 

1 

10 

September  30,  1911 

1384 

10 

3 

Probably  the  most  important  result  was  the  feeling  of  bitterness 
that  developed  between  the  Labor  Party  and  the  two  opposing  parties 
because  of  the  frank  satisfaction  of  the  Conservatives  and  the 
apparent  indifference  of  the  Liberals.  On  the  whole,  it  seemed  that 
the  judgment,  rather  than  weakening  the  Labor  movement  politically, 
tended  to  strengthen  it.  The  first  thought  was,  as  it  had  been 
after  the  Taff  Vail  decision,  redress  through  legislation,  but  the 
final  decision  of  the  Law  Lords  was  made  public  just  before  the 
precipitation  of  a general  election,  and  there  was  no  opportunity 
of  accomplishing  anything  immeidateiy. 

The  Parliament  elected  in  1906  had  made  extensive  promises  to 
the  country  in  the  realm  of  social  legislation,  and  in  accordance 


l.-See  the  Quarterly  Reports  of  the  Labor  Party  for  1908-1912. 


, 


\ 


46. 


with  its  promises,  had  passed  a number  of  acts  such  as  those  rela- 
ting to  workmen’s  compensation,  child  welfare,  education  reform, 
old  age  pensions,  protection  against  unemployment  and  sweated  labor, 
housing  and  land  problems,  and  others.  Naturally  the  Government 
could  not  embark  upon  such  a program  without  incurring  heavy  expen- 
ditures, and  it  was  necessary  to  look  for  new  sources  of  revenue  in 
order  to  meet  the  growing  budget.  Early  in  1909,  David  Lloyd  George, 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  introduced  a budget  bill  which  was 
considered  radical  in  the  extreme.  Indirect  taxes,  since  they  fall 
most  heavily,  relatively,  on  the  poorer  classes,  were  kept  at  about 
the  same  rates,  while  direct  taxes  were  levied  at  a much  higher 
rate.  Hates  we re  raised  on  luxuries,  such  as  motor  cars,  and  the 
super  tax  on  incomes  was  steeply  graduated;  rates  on  death  duties, 
or  what  we  call  inheritance  taxes,  were  raised;  but  worst  of  all, 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  aristocracy  of  the  country,  land  and  the 
unearned  increment  therein  were  subjected  to  a heavy  duty.  The 
Conservatives  at  once  attacked  the  bill  as  Socialistic,  claiming 
that  rather  than  being  a revenue  measure,  it  really  aimed  at  a re- 
distribution of  wealth  in  the  country,  by  taking  from  the  rich  in 
the  form  of  taxes,  and  giving  to  the  poor  in  the  form  of  benefits 
from  the  social  legislation  which  had  been  passed.  The  Labor  Party 
members  ?/ere,  of  course,  enthusiastic  advocates  of  the  bill,  and  it 
passed  the  House  of  Commons  v/ithout  difficulty,  although  it  encoun- 
tered a great  deal  of  hostile  criticism. 

In  the  House  of  Lords,  the  situation  v/as  different.  Here  the 
landed  proprietors  were  in  the  overwhelming  majority,  and  they 
regarded  the  budget  as  utterly  unbearable.  Shorn  of  much  of  their 
power  as  they  had  been,  they  had  grown  accustomed  to  agreeing  with- 


47. 


out  much  opposition  to  most  of  the  work  of  the  House  of  Commons, 
hut  this  was  too  much.  Technically  the  Lords  had  no  right  to  inter- 
fere with  a finance  hill,  hut  they  got  around  the  difficulty  hy 
declaring  that  this  budget  was,  in  its  implications,  much  more  than 
simply  a finance  hill,  and  demanded  that  the  country  express  its 
opinion  before  they  would  agree  to  it.  Their  action,  of  course, 
necessitated  a general  election  on  the  issue. 

The  election  of  January,  1910,  was  precipitated  rather  suddenly, 
and  the  Labor  Party  was  not  as  well  prepared  as  it  might  have  been 
had  the  appeal  to  the  country  come  a little  later.  It  was  about 
this  time  that  charges  of  a Liberal-Labor  alliance  began  to  be  made 
by  Conservative  speakers.  It  would  seem,  however,  that  the  Labor 
Party  never  had  any  official  agreement  with  the  Liberals,  in  spite 
of  circumstances  that  looked  very  much  like  deliberate  cooperation. 
Indeed,  nearly  all  of  the  Labor  Party's  contests  in  the  election 
were  three-cornered  affairs.  Labor  supported  the  Lloyd  George 
budget  because  it  had  been  voted  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out 
social  reform,  and  because  they  favored  the  principles  of  taxation 
it  involved.  It  is  true  that  the  Labor  Party  did  not  enter  as  many 
candidates  in  the  election  as  they  had  been  expected  to,  but  one 
reason  for  that  fact  was  that  they  were  simply  not  prepared  for  the 
situation.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  true  that  they  conducted  their 
campaign  with  a view  to  insuring  the  defeat  of  the  Conservatives 
who  had  rejected  the  budget.  In  all,  the  Labor  Party  withdrew  from 
the  field  a total  of  twenty-four  candidates,  its  list  being  reduced 
from  one  hundred  and  two  to  seventy-eight . These  withdrawals  were 
made  so  as  not  to  endanger  the  victory  of  the  budget,  eleven  of 
them  being  in  constituencies  in  which  the  Party  had  never  campaigned 


48. 


1. 

"before,  and  the  remainder  in  industrial  centers.  Of  the  seventy- 
eight  Labor  candidates  who  went  to  the  polls  in  January,  1910, 
fourteen  were  Independent  Labor  Party  men,  two  were  Fabians, 
thirty-seven  were  trades  unionists,  and  twenty-five  were  miners. 
These  men  fought  in  sixty-five  single  members  and  thirteen  double 
constituencies.  Of  the  sixty-five,  twenty-seven  were  opposed  by 
Liberals  or  Liberals  and  Conservatives,  and  thirty-eight  were 

opposed  by  Conservatives.  Nineteen  former  Liberal  seati  were  en- 

1. 

danger ed. 

As  a result  of  the  election,  forty  Labor  members  were  returned. 
This  number  was  larger  than  the  number  of  Labor  Party  men  returned 
in  the  former  election,  but  was  less  than  the  total  of  labor  men 
in  the  last  Parliament.  Three  new  seats  had  been  added,  but  nine 
old  ones  were  lost.  The  Party  confined  its  efforts  to  industrial 
and  mining  constituencies.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  Party  ran  its 
first  candidate  in  Ireland  in  this  election.  In  spite  of  the  rather 
disappointing  showing  of  the  Party  in  actual  Parliamentary  repre- 
sentation, the  total  vote  polled  in  1910  ?/as  499,011,  as  compared 
with  323,195  in  1906.  The  fact  that  the  action  of  the  House  of 
Lords  was  the  chief  issue  was  a distinct  disadvantage  to  Labor, 
inasmuch  as  it  strengthened  the  Liberal  cause  in  those  constituen- 
cies where  Labor  was  strongest.  In  this  election  the  Anti-Socialist 
Union  maintained  a training  school  for  speakers,  and  conducted  an 
energetic  propaganda.  The  social  Democratic  Federation,  campaign- 
ing in  complete  independence  of  all  other  parties,  elected  one 
representative.  A unique  feature  of  the  campaign  was  the  effort  of 

l.-E.  Porritt,  The  British  Labor  Party . in  the  Political 
Science  Quarterly  for  June,  1910. 


i 


49. 


the  Conservatives  to  capture  the  labor  vote  by  the  formation  of  the 
Tory  Democracy,  which  ran  six  candidates,  none  of  whom  were  success- 
ful. The  net  result  of  the  election  was  the  retention  of  the  Liber- 
als in  power,  but  dependent  on  independent  groups,  such  as  the  Labor 
Party  and  the  Irish  nationalists  for  sufficient  support  to  continue 

them  in  office*  and  the  consequent  passage  of  the  much-discussed 

1. 

Lloyd  George  budget.  Incidentally  the  remnant  of  the  Liberal-Labor 
group  utterly  disappeared.  The  Labor  group  in  Parliament  moved  from 
the  opposition  benches  to  the  Government  side  of  the  House;  not 
because  they  intended  to  consolidate  their  strength  with  that  of 
the  Government,  but  simply  because  as  a result  of  the  election  there 
was  not  sufficient  room  for  them  on  the  opposition  side  of  the 
House.  As  for  the  other  election,  which  occurred  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  it  did  not  materially  change  the  aspect  of  affairs;  the  Labor 

Party  gained  a couple  of  seats  and  brought  up  its  total  to  forty- 

2 . 

two . 

Of  course  the  first  thing  sought  by  Labor  under  the  new  Govern- 
ment was  legislation  designed  to  nullify  the  effects  of  the  Osborne 
Judgment.  Winston  Churchill,  a Liberal  member,  brought  in  a bill  so 
shaped  as  to  meet  Osborne's  objections  to  the  political  methods  of 
trades  unions.  It  provided  that  union  expenditure  for  political 
purposes  should  be  made  out  of  a separate  fund,  to  which  no  member 
was  to  be  forced  to  subscribe  against  his  will.  Refusal  to  subscribe 
was  not  to  mitigate  against  the  standing  of  the  individual  in  the 

1. -It  is  an  interesting  commentary  on  this  much-discussed  increment 

tax  on  land  values  that  it  turned  out  to  be  far  less  productive 
than  its  advocates  had  hoped,  and  was  finally  dropped  with  the 
consent  of  Lloyd  George. 

2.  -Investigation  of  particular  constituencies  shows  that  the  Party 

was  particularly  strong  in  Wales  and  Scotland,  and  in  Durham, 
Lancashire,  and  Yorkshire  in  England. 


1 


/ 


50. 

union.  However,  the  hill  was  satisfactory  neither  to  the  Labor  mem- 


bers nor  to  their  opponents  among  the  Liberals  and  Conservatives, 
and  so  it  died  a natural  death.  Several  other  attempts  on  similar 
lines  were  made  in  subsequent  sessions,  but  nothing  was  done  direct- 
ly to  counteract  the  effects  of  the  judgment.  It  seemed  as  if  Labor 
had  lost  that  almost  hypnotic  influence  which  had  achieved  such  a 
speedy  and  far-reaching  reversal  of  the  Taff  Vail  situation  in  1906. 

The  new  Parliament  enacted  one  piece  of  legislation,  neverthe- 
less, which  had  been  agitated  for  many  years  past  by  Labor  members; 
indeed,  from  the  days  of  the  Chartist  movement,  in  1848i  I refer  to 
the  payment  of  Members  of  Parliament.  The  passage  of  the  act  was 
consummated  without  much  reference  to  the  situation  produced  by  the 
Osborne  Judgment,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  that  situation  was 
influential  in  bringing  the  agitation  to  a head  and  forcing  the 
action  of  Parliament.  There  was  much  display  of  fervid  oratory  on 
this  question,  for  many  of  the  members  seemed  to  feel  it  to  be  an 
insult  that  they  should  be  offered  any  remuneration  for  their  ser- 
vices. Seventy  M.P.'s  declared  they  would  not  accept  the  proposed 

1. 

salary,  and  most  of  the  others  stated  that  they  disliked  the  idea. 
However,  in  spite  of  the  opposition,  a bill  was  finally  passed 
providing  for  the  payment  of  an  annual  salary  of  four  hundred  pounds 
to  Members  of  Parliament. 

In  1912  the  Labor  Party  provided  for  the  satisfaction  of  a long- 
felt  want  by  establishing  a daily  Labor  newspaper,  which  was  to  be 
known  as  the  Daily  Citizen.  The  possibility  of  such  a move  is  large- 
ly traceable  to  the  action  of  Parliament  in  providing  for  the  pay- 

1. -Baumann,  A.  A. f Law  and  the  Labor  Party . in  the 
Fortnightly  Review  for  October,  1911. 


51. 


ment  of  members,  for  the  Party  was  enabled  to  divert  a very  sub- 
stantial part  of  what  had  been  their  Parliamentary  fund  to  the 
necessary  capitalisation  of  the  new  enterprise.  The  paper  was  not 
to  be  merely  a means  of  spreading  propaganda  and  Labor  opinion,  but 
was  designed  to  be  a full-fledged  and  up-to-date  newspaper.  There 
is  no  doubt  the  enterprise  was  a very  valuable  asset  to  the  Party, 

but  for  a long  time  it  maintained  but  a very  precarious  existence 

\ 

because  of  the  insufficiency  of  its  financial  basis. 

Indeed,  the  period  that  intervened  between  the  elections  of  1910 
and  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War  in  1914  was  one  of  rather  rough 
sledding  for  the  Labor  Party.  It  seems  as  if  a good  many  of  its 
earlier  adherents  had  expected  it  to  discover  some  immediate  and 
potent  panacea  for  social  and  industrial  ills,  and  its  failure  to 
do  so  was  held  against  it.  Even  many  of  those  who  were  naturally 
sympathetic  with  the  workers  reproached  the  Party  with  lowering  the 
political  morality  of  the  working  man  by  holding  out  to  him  the 
prospect  of  power  without  responsibility.  According  to  a friendly 
critic,  the  Labor  representatives  were  sent  to  Parliament  "for 
purposes  which  are  specific  and  with  definite  tasks  to  perform,  and 
not  merely  to  be  beneficent  at  large",  the  implication  being  that 

they  represented  their  own  group  rather  than  the  constituency  for 

1. 

which  they  were  elected.  This  same  critic  complained  that  the  Party 
aimed  at  capturing  the  economic  and  political  organization  of 
society  for  its  own  advantages;  that  it  stressed  &ot  citizenship 
but  similarity  of  ecomomic  conditions  as  the  basis  of  unity;  that 
the  sacredness  of  the  State  was  not  sufficiently  emphasized;  that 

l.-H.  Jones,  Corruption  of  the  Citizenship  of  the  Workingman . 
in  the  Hibbert  Journal  for  October,  1911. 


- 


52. 

it  appealed  to  a selfish  retaliation  for  past  wrongs,  and  lacked 
idealism  and  a real  faith  in  the  people;  together  with  much  more 
to  the  same  effect. 

There  was  much  of  such  unfavorable  comment  in  the  influential 
journals  and  magazines  of  the  time.  From  a position  of  comparative 
prestige  and  power  in  1906,  the  Party  seemed  to  have  fallen  into 
disrepute  and  feebleness  in  1912  and  1913.  These  years,  it  is  true, 
we re  a time  of  great  industrial  unrest,  with  continual  strikes  and 

threat  of  strikes.  Real  wages  had  fallen  off  from  twelve  to  fifteen 

1. 

per  cent,  from  1900  to  1912,  and  it  was  charged  that  the  Labor  Party 
had  done  nothing  to  remedy  the  situation.  The  mass  of  the  Labor  men 
were  reproached  with  being  subservient  to  the  Liberal  Government, 
which,  in  spite  of  the  commercial  prosperity  of  its  tenure  of 
office,  found  labor  worse  off  in  1913  than  when  it  had  begun  its 
work.  The  Labor  group,  it  was  charged,  had  no  homogeneity,  and  its 
leaders  had,  through  their  elevation  to  Parliament,  lost  contact 
with  the  workmen  themselves.  Much  of  the  social  legislation  which 
had  been  passed,  such,  for  instance,  as  compulsory  arbitration  and 
the  Insurance  Act,  had  been  in  a great  many  instances,  detrimental 
to  the  cause  of  the  trades  unions.  These  critics  further  urged  that 
the  inability  of  the  Parliamentary  group  to  formulate  a constructive 
program,  and  their  failure  to  achieve  anything  very  definite  had 
been  the  cause  of  the  rapid  spread  of  Syndicalism  among  the  trades 
unionists.  Establishment  of  the  Government  Labor  Exchanges,  sup- 
ported by  the  Labor  Party,  had  broken  down  the  trades  union  mono- 
poly of  the  labor  market;  the  Workmen's  Compensation  Act  had  tended 

l.-J.  M.  Kennedy,  Eai lure  of  the  Labor  Party,  in  the 
Fortnightly  Review  for  February,  1910. 


53. 

to  exclude  older  men  from  employment;  and  so  forth,  _ad  inf ini turn. 

There  is  such  a volume  of  this  sort  of  criticism  that  it  is 
impossible  to  consider  it  at  great  length.  Much  of  it  was  directed 
against  the  Socialistic  objectives  of  the  Party,  which  had  been 
defined  at  its  Conference  at  Hull  in  1908  as  follows:  "That  in  the 
opinion  of  this  Conference  the  time  has  arrived  when  the  Labor  Party 
should  have  as  a definite  object  the  socialization  of  the  means  of 
production,  distribution,  and  exchange,  to  be  controlled  by  a 
Democratic  State  in  the  interests  of  the  entire  community,  and  the 
complete  emancipation  of  Labor  from  the  domination  of  Capitalism 
and  Landlordism  with  the  establishment  of  social  and  economic  equal- 
ity between  the  sexes." 

Hot  all  the  comment  was  so  disparaging,  however.  Most  observers 
admitted  the  sincerity  and  efficiency  of  the  Labor  members  in  the 
House,  and  many  were  inclined  to  agree  that  the  movement  had  been, 
on  the  whole,  a good  thing.  The  ratio  of  the  working  population  of 

the  country  to  the  remainder  was  estimated  as  high  as  fifteen  to 

1. 

one,  and  one  apologist  in  the  Westminster  Review  declared  that  the 
grievances  of  Labor  were  practically  the  grievances  of  the  whole 
nation,  adding  "The  real  aim  of  the  Labor  Movement  is  to  work  for 
a state  of  social  life  in  which  each  man  will  have  free  scope  for 
the  development  of  his  faculties,  and  yet  be  free  from  the  exploit- 
ation which  under  the  present  system  is  bad  alike  for  the  Individual 
and  for  Society";  and  again,  "Poverty,  where  there  is  sufficient  for 
all,  is  an  anachronism,  and  the  best  energies  of  mankind  cannot 
possibly  be  exerted  so  long  as  the  overwhelming  mass  of  the  people 

1. -Maurice  Hewlett,  The  Labor  Party  and  the  Future . in  the 
Fortnightly  Review  for  October,  1913. 


. 


. 


' 

' 


54. 


1. 

are  almost  wholly  occupied  in  securing  an  animal  existence.” 

The  potential  strength  of  the  Labor  Party  continued  to  grow  in 
spite  of  dissatisfaction  and  adverse  criticism.  The  trades  unions, 

on  which  the  Party  relied  for  strength,  had  increased  in  total 

2. 

membership  from  2,113,806  in  1906  to  3,987,115  in  1913.  Of  course 
not  all  these  can  be  considered  as  members  of  the  Labor  Party,  since 
there  were  still  some  of  the  smaller  unions  which  had  not  affiliated 
with  the  Party.  In  addition  to  the  trades  union  membership,  there 
were  the  Socialist  societies,  whose  membership  had  increased,  at  a 

3. 

rough  estimate,  from  about  20,000  in  1906  to  about  35,000  in  1913. 
Luting  the  period,  therefore,  it  can  be  said  that  the  potential 
strength  of  the  movement  had  approximately  doubled. 


1. -R.  0.  Lavis,  The  Labor  Movement;  a psychological  study . in 

the  Westminster  Revie?/  for  June,  1907. 

2.  -Webb,  History  of  Trade  Unionism.  Appendix  VI,  p.  750. 

3.  -Humphrey,  A.  7/.,  A History  of  Labor  Representation. 

Appendix  IV,  p.  196. 


‘ 


55. 


CHAPTER  I II. -The  War  and  After. 

First  Phase:  Truce  and  Coalition. 

The  months  immediately  preceding  the  outbreak  of  war  in  1914 
were  a time  of  constantly  increasing  industrial  unrest.  The  politi- 
cal labor  movement  seemed  to  have  lost  the  confidence  of  its  own 
constituency,  and  was  fast  approaching  a state  of  practical  impoten- 
cy  to  remedy  the  industrial  situation.  Disappointment  at  the  failure 
of  the  Labor  Party  to  bring  about  an  immediate  Utopia  in  living  con- 
ditions had  turned  the  thoughts  of  great  numbers  of  the  more  radical 
of  the  working  classes  into  channels  of  Syndicalism,  and  direct, 
rather  than  Parliamentary  action,  was  much  favored.  From  1911  to 
1914  there  had  occurred  a series  of  great  strikes;  in  July,  1914,  a 
serious  strike  in  the  building  industry  was  just  closing,  and  trou- 
ble was  brewing  in  the  mines,  on  the  railways,  and  in  the  engineer- 
ing and  other  trades.  Indeed,  it  seemed  as  if  the  industrial  situa- 
tion was  moving  inevitably  toward  a grand  crisis,  and  it  is  impos- 
sible to  conjecture  what  might  have  been  the  economic  and  political 
complexion  of  Great  Britain  at  this  day,  had  it  not  been  for  the 
sudden  precipitation  of  the  Great  T.7ar. 

In  view  of  the  strong  Socialist  element  in  it,  and  its  inter- 
national affiliations,  the  stand  of  the  Labor  Party  with  regard  to 
the  war  was,  to  say  the  least,  problematical.  Its  leaders  had 
densed  the  growing  hostility  between  the  British  and  German  nations 
in  the  preceding  years,  and  had  done  their  best  to  avert  difficul- 
ties by  exchanging  messages  of  good  will,  and  trying  to  reach  an 
understanding.  During  those  anxious  latter  days  of  July,  both  the 


' 


I 


, 


* 


,v| 

. 


i lh 


Labor  Party  and  the  British  Section  of  the  Internationale  demanded 
that  the  Government  do  its  utmost  to  prevent  a European  war,  and 
insisted  further,  that  if  the  war  were  inevitable,  Britain  had  no 
business  in  it,  and  should  remain  neutral.  On  Sunday,  August  2,  a 
great  anti-war  demonstration  was  held  in  Trafalgar  Square  under  the 
auspices  of  the  British  Section  of  the  International,  J.  Heir  Hardie 
Arthur  Henderson,  Will  Thorne,  and  George  Lansbury  being  the  prin- 
ciple speakers.  This  meeting  confirmed  the  decision  of  the  two 
afore-mentioned  bodies  with  respect  to  England's  position.  Germany's 
attitude  toward  Belgium  and  Sir  Edward  Grey's  speech  in  the  House  of 
Commons  changed  the  aspect  of  affairs,  however,  and  England  was 
plunged  suddenly  into  the  war. 

It  was  scarcely  to  be  expected  that  a party  embracing  so  wide  a 
range  of  opinion  as  the  Labor  group  would  maintain  a united  front 
on  such  an  issue  as  the  war.  The  extreme  right,  including  such  men 
as  Mr.  Will  Crooks,  were  among  the  first  to  declare  for  war.  On  the 
other  hand,  ardent  internationalists  such  as  Bamsay  Macdonald 
strongly  opposed  the  war  and  insisted  that  the  country  maintain  its 

neutrality.  Indeed,  Macdonald's  position  nearly  cost  him  his  posi- 

1. 

tion  in  public  life.  It  soon  became  evident  that  probably  five- 

sixths  of  the  Labor  M.P.'s  and  nine-tenths  of  the  Party  membership 

2. 

favored  English  participation  in  the  war,  and  Macdonald  consequently 
resigned  the  Party  leadership.  John  Burns,  former  Liberal-Labor  man, 

quietly  dropped  out  of  public  life  as  a result  of  his  opposition  to 

1. 

the  war,  and  it  looked  as  if  Macdonald  was  destined  to  do  likewise. 
Arthur  Henderson  assumed  the  Party  leadership.  But,  in  spite  of  his 

1. -G.  D.  H.  Cole,  Labour  in  War  Time . p.  30. 

2.  -Webb,  S.  and  B.,  History  of  Trade  Unionism,  p.  690 


57. 


■belief  that  the  war  should  have  heen  avoided,  Macdonald  maintained 
that  since  England  was  in,  she  should  carry  the  matter  through  to  a 
successful  conclusion.  As  he  wrote  to  the  Mayor  of  Leicester,  in 
connection  with  a recruiting  campaign, 

"Should  an  opportunity  arise  to  enable  me  to  appeal  to  the  pure 

love  of  country which  I know  is  a rare  sentiment  in  all  our  hearts 

keeping  it  clear  of  thoughts  which  I believe  to  be  alien  to  real 

patriotism I shall  gladly  take  that  opportunity.  If  need  be  I 

shall  make  it  for  myself.  I want  the  serious  men  of  the  Trade  Union, 
the  Brotherhood,  and  similar  movements  to  face  their  duty.  To  such 
men  it  is  enough  to  say  ’England  has  need  of  you’ ; to  say  it  in  the 
right  way.  They  will  gather  to  her  aid.  They  will  protect  her,  and 
when  the  war  is  over  they  will  see  to  it  that  the  policies  and 

conditions  that  make  it  will  go  like  the  mists  of  a plague  and  the 

1. 

shadows  of  a pestilence." 

The  great  mass  of  Trade  Unionists  stood  solidly  behind  the 
Government.  The  Fabians,  according  to  their  traditions,  took  the 
situation  philosophically  and  resolved  to  make  the  best  of  it.  The 
most  important  section  of  the  Labor  Party  to  take  a definitely  anti- 
war stand  was  the  Independent  Labor  Party.  This  group,  typified  by 
such  men  as  Macdonald  and  Eobert  Smillie,  the  head  of  the  Miners' 
Federation,  stood  consistently  throughout  the  war  for  peace  by 
negotiation.  The  consensus  of  opinion  within  the  Party  is  pretty 
well  conveyed  by  the  following  excerpt  from  the  report  of  the  Par- 
liamentary Party  for  1914:  "The  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the 
Party,  after  several  meetings  to  consider  the  situation,  crystal- 
lized into  a conviction  that  under  the  circumstances  it  was 


l.-Cole,  op.  cit.,  p.  52. 


58. 


1. 

impossible  for  thie  country  to  have  remained  neutral."  In  a further 

2. 

statement,  issued  in  October,  1914,  it  was  declared  that  Labor  had 
stood  for  peace,  and  had  made  special  efforts  for  peace  with  Ger- 
many; but  it  was  recognized  that  peace  was  impossible  in  this  case, 
since  a German  victory  would  mean  the  death  of  democracy  in  Europe. 
And  even  Ramsay  Macdonald  declared  in  a letter  to  the  Morning  Post 

that  ’’Among  other  things,  they  could  not  make  peace  until  Belgium 

5. 

was  freed  and  compensated  for  the  evil  she  had  suffered." 

Under  the  domination  of  its  more  moderate  leadership,  then,  the 
Labor  Party  entered  into  a political  truce  with  the  Liberal  and 
Conservative  parties  whereby  all  bye-elections  would  be  held  without 
contest,  the  party  in  power  in  the  constituency  returning  its  ov/n 
candidate.  This  truce  was  continued  until  the  end  of  1916,  when  the 
Labor  Party  declared  that  the  other  parties  had  tried  to  import 
extraneous  and  unacceptable  conditions  into  the  agreement.  The 
spirit  of  the  agreement  was  generally  observed  for  eighteen  months 
longer,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  written  agreement  was  discon- 
tinued. The  Party  accepted  the  decision  of  its  executive  in  this 
matter  only  with  great  reluctance,  however,  and  in  several  instances 
conducted  insurgent  campaigns  without  official  authorization.  A bye- 
election  at  Salford  resulted  in  the  election  of  the  Labor  candidate, 
Ben  Willett,  on  a pro-war  basis,  and  this  success  probably  encour- 
aged further  efforts.  In  two  cases,  however  (Keighley  and  Y/ansbeck)  , 
the  Labor  candidates,  running  without  executive  authorization,  and 
on  a peace  by  negotiation  platform,  were  defeated.  Robert  Smillie 
declared  that  the  truce  weakened  Labor,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion 

1. -A.  W.  Humphrey,  British  Labor  Movement  and  the  ..:ar . in  the 

Political  Science  Quarterly  for  March,  1917,  pp.  1-27. 

2. -Cf.  Liberal  Magazine  for  1914,  pp.  703-705. 

3.  -Quoted  in  the  Liberal  Magazine  for  1915,  p.  265. 


59. 


that  Labor  would,  have  won  the  Uansbeck  election  with  the  official 
aid  of  the  Labor  Party.  Arthur  Henderson  declared,  fairly  enough, 
that  either  the  truce  would  have  to  be  observed,  or  the  executive 
should  be  relieved  of  responsibility  in  the  matter. 

The  political  truce  amounted  practically  to  merging  the  Party 
individuality  with  the  Government.  But  the  Party  went  even  further 
when  the  Liberal  Government  was  succeeded  by  the  Hirst  Coalition 
Government,  in  1915.  In  the  redistribution  of  offices,  Hr.  Asquith 
appointed  Mr.  Henderson,  the  leader  of  the  Labor  Party,  to  the 
Presidency  of  the  Board  of  Education,  and  Mr.  G.  H.  Barnes  was  made 
Minister  of  Pensions.  Under  the  Second  Coalition  Government,  which 
was  formed  by  Lloyd  George  the  following  year,  Henderson  was  made 
Paymaster-General , and  a member  of  the  17 ar  Cabinet;  Barnes  was 
continued  in  his  position; John  Hodge  was  made  Minister  of  Labor;  and 
W.  Brace,  G.  H.  Roberts,  and  James  Parker  were  appointed  to  minor 
offices.  Such  participation  was  opposed  to  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  the  Party,  and  was  severely  criticized,  not  only  by  the 
anti-war  minority,  but  also  by  many  who  supported  the  war.  The  Party 
also  cooperated,  in  the  early  days  of  the  war,  in  a Parliamentary 
recruiting  campaign,  in  which  the  Government  and  the  Opposition 
?/orked  together  under  the  terms  of  the  party  truce.  This  proposal 
also  caused  a great  deal  of  disagreement  and  discussion  within  the 
Party,  but  the  national  executive  finally  sanctioned  the  action  of 
the  Parliamentary  Party,  and  Mr.  Arthur  Henderson  became  one  of  the 
Presidents  of  the  Parliamentary  Recruiting  Committee,  other  Labor 
appointees  being  James  Parker,  3?.  17.  Goldstone,  and  J.  Pointer. 

whether  or  not  participation  in  the  Coalition  Government  was 
advisable  under  the  circumstances,  there  were  some,  at  least,  who 


60  • 

had  no  doubts  in  the  matter:  the  extremists  of  the  left  bitterly 
opposed  the  project,  and  have  consistently  declared  from  that  day  to 
this  that  the  action  weakened  the  political  position  of  Labor.  From 
the  very  outset,  war  exigencies  were  such  as  to  make  it  evident 
that  the  hard-won  rights  and  privileges  of  Labor  would  have  to  be 
modified  considerably,  at  least  during  the  war  period.  The  Govern- 
ment tried  to  institute  an  industrial  truce  for  the  avoidance  of 
strikes  during  the  war,  and  the  Parliamentary  Labor  Party  enjoined 
its  observance  upon  its  constituent  bodies.  The  truce  was  observed 
only  for  a period  of  about  six  months,  however,  for  strikes  broke 
out  again  in  1915,  and  were  more  or  less  prevalent  throughout  the 
remainder  of  the  war,  in  spite  of  such  legislation  as  the  various 
Munitions  of  War  Acts  and  Defense  of  the  Kealm  Acts,  which  not  only 
involved  a considerable  curtailment  of  personal  liberty,  but  also 
imposed  what  was  practically  compulsory  arbitration  as  to  wages. 

The  Government  also  instituted  a policy  of  what  was  known  as  the 
dilution  of  labor,  which  involved  the  introduction  of  women  and 
unskilled,  non-union  labor  in  trades  formerly  controlled  by  the 
unionists.  Both  sides  agreed,  however,  as  to  the  necessity  of  much 
of  this  legislation,  though  it  is  now  generally  admitted  that  the 
extension  of  working  hours  went  too  far.  On  the  other  hand,  however, 
the  war  was  a time  when  there  was  plenty  of  work  for  all  at  abnor- 
mally high  wages  (for  the  rise  in  prices  did  not  overtake  the  rise 
in  wages  until  late  in  the  war) . 

In  some  of  these  matters,  the  Labor  Party  felt  it  its  duty  to 
protest  against  the  action  of  the  Government,  though  for  the  most 
part  it  acquiesced. The  greatest  difficulty  occurred  over  the  matter 
of  conscription,  which  was  proposed  by  the  Government  in  1915. 


' 

- 


61. 


Practically  all  sections  of  the  labor  movement,  whether  right  or 
left,  were  outspoken  in  their  criticism  of  the  principle  of  compul- 
sory military  service. ' Indeed,  the  Party  had  entered  the  Parliamen- 
tary Recruiting  Campaign  in  hopes  that  the  success  of  the  voluntary 
system  would  make  conscription  unnecessary.  Even  the  conservative 
Trades  Union  Congress  opposed  the  idea,  but  after  a representative 
labor  group  had  been  addressed  on  the  subject  by  Lord  Kitchener, 
they  formed  a committee  to  aid  the  Government,  though  still  reiter- 
ating their  position  with  regard  to  the  principle  involved.  Arthur 
Henderson,  when  finally  convinced  that  the  move  was  inevitable, 
agreed  to  the  proposal  with  reluctance,  stipulating  that  the  Govern- 
ment should  not  continue  the  policy  beyond  the  war  nor  use  the 
powers  thus  conferred  upon  them  against  the  masses  in  industrial 
disputes.  The  Rational  Registration  Act  was  finally  passed  in  August 
1915,  with  the  I.  L.  P.  men  and  three  other  Labor  men  opposing  it. 
This  Act  was  merely  the  prelude  to  the  actual  conscription  measure, 
which  v/as  not  decided  on  until  after  Christmas.  The  final  bill  was 

passed  with  eleven  Labor  men  opposing  it  on  the  second  reading,  and 

u 

five  on  the  third,  with  two  pairing.  A second  military  service  act 
v/as  passed  four  months  later,  practically  without  opposition,  fhe 
Labor  Party  still  continued  to  condemn  the  act,  though  they  refused 
to  agitate  for  its  repeal. 

Labor  was,  indeed,  politically  futile,  almost  subservient, 
during  the  earlier  stages  of  the  war.  The  Party  seemed  to  have  lost 
the  power  of  thought  and  independent  action.  A spirit  of  chauvinism 
seemed  to  have  replaced  the  breadth  of  international  view  v/hich  had 
formerly  characterized  the  Party.  Eor  instance,  when  Samuel  Gompers 
suggested  holding  an  international  trades  union  congress  coincident 


■ ' .. 


- » i*wm. 


. 


62. 


with  the  official  peace  conference  to  protect  the  interests  of 

labor,  the  Birmingham  Conference  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress  (1916) 

1. 

voted  down  the  project  hy  1,486,000  to  723,000.  Will  Thorne,  M.P., 
welcomed  the  suggestion  for  an  Inter-Allied  Conference,  but  de- 
clared absurd  the  idea  of  including  enemy  delegates.  The  Bail?/ 
Citizen,  which  had  been  founded  with  such  high  hopes  in  1912, 
finally  ceased  publication  after  a short  and  troubled  existence,  in 
1915.  V/hen  the  encroachments  of  the  Government  on  labor  rights  went 
unendurably  far  and  the  Party  w as  stung  to  protest,  its  members  were 
taunted  with  pacifism  and  defeatism.  Practically  the  only  encour- 
aging event  in  those  days  was  the  affiliation  of  the  British  Social- 

2. 

ist  Party  with  the  Labor  Party  in  January,  1916.  This  accession  was 
supposed  to  add  about  ten  thousand  members,  but  the  group  was  split 
shortly  afterward , the  right  wing,  under  the  leadership  of  the 
veteran  Hyndman  forming  the  national  Socialist  Party.  As  late  as 
1916  the  Labor  Party  refused  to  consider  problems  of  peace,  lest 
such  discussion  be  considered  disloyal.  The  Scottish  section  re- 
mained more  independent;  its  executive  refused  to  join  in  the  re- 
cruiting campaign,  denounced  the  military  service  acts,  and  called 
for  a meeting  of  the  Internationale;  but  its  attitude  was  not 
characteristic  of  the  mass  of  the  Party. 

Second  Phase:  The  Revival  of  the  Labor  Party. 

It  was  not  until  1917  and  1918  that  Labor  experienced  a reawa- 
kening and  began  to  express  itself  once  more.  The  factor  which 
turned  the  tide  (or  was  at  least  instrumental)  was  the  Russian 

1.  -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  British  Labor  and  the  Bar,  pp.  19-20.  In 

these  conferences,  each  vote  represents  one  thousand  members. 

2. -  A.  17.  Humphrey,  British  Labor  Movement  and  the  Var,  in  the 

Political  Science  Quarterly  for  Liar  eh , 1917. 


63. 


Revolution,  for  it  was  the  Kerensky  government  which  precipitated 
the  project  of  the  Inter -Allied  Socialist  Conference  at  Stockholm, 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  war  aims,  which  caused  such  a furor 
in  Allied  political  circles.  There  had  "been  an  Inter -Allied  Social- 
ist Conference  in  London  in  February,  1915,  hut  it  had  done  little 

1. 

beyond  condemning  the  treatment  of  Belgium,  Poland,  and  Servia. 

Since  that  time,  such  conferences  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  war 
aims  had  been  frowned  on  by  the  Allied  governments,  as  savoring  of 
pacifism,  and  that  idea  had  been  reflected  in  the  overwhelming 
sentiment  of  the  Labor  Party  and  the  Trades  Union  Congress.  Shortly 
after  the  Revolution,  however,  Henderson  was  dispatched  to  Russia 
by  Lloyd  George  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  conditions  and 
bringing  about  the  most  efficient  cooperation  with  the  new  govern- 
ment. He  was  even  authorised  to  remain  as  ambassador,  if  he  saw  fit, 

2. 

at  a salary  of  $40,000  a year.  Henderson  had  at  first  opposed  the 
idea  of  the  Stockholm  Conference,  but  after  conferring  with  Keren- 
sky and  investigating  conditions  in  Russia,  he  decided  that  the 
conference  would  be  productive  of  good  results.  He  saw  that  the 
Russian  government  was  on  a rather  unstable  foundation,  and  that  in 
order  to  insure  its  hearty  support  of  the  war  it  would  be  necessary 
to  make  very  definite  the  aims  for  which  the  Allied  nations  were 
fighting.  It  7/as  also  hoped  that  an  appeal  such  as  the  conference 
v/ould  doubtless  make  to  the  workers  of  Austria  and  Germany  would 
lead  to  a revolt  against  the  autocratic  governments  of  the  Central 
PoY/ers.  Henderson  felt  further  that  it  v/ould  be  very  unwise  to 
allow/  the  Russian  delegates  to  meet  v/ith  those  from  the  Central 

1.  -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  76. 

2. -3.  and  B.  Webb,  op.  cit.,  p.  694. 


64. 

powers  without  the  presence  of  any  counteracting  forces,  such  as 
would  he  supplied  hy  Allied  representatives. 

Henderson  returned  from  Russia,  therefore,  thoroughly  converted 
to  the  idea  of  the  conference.  The  Government  had  originally  "been 
rather  favorably  inclined  toward  the  project,  but  in  the  meanwhile 
the  French,  Italian,  and  American  governments  had  registered  their 
strong  disapproval  of  the  scheme,  and  had  peremptorily  refused  pass-: 
ports  to  their  delegates.  Lloyd  George  veered  around  and  did  like- 
wise, and  Henderson,  charged  with  breach  of  faith  as  a member  of 
the  bar  Cabinet,  resigned  (Barnes  and  the  other  Labor  men  remaining 
in  the  ministry,  however).  Meanwhile  a Party  Conference,  called  at ■ 
Central  Hall,  Westminster , London,  on  August  10,  1917,  had,  under 

the  influence  of  Henderson,  decided  by  a vote  of  1,846,000  to 

1. 

550,000  to  send  delegates  to  Stockholm.  The  vote  records  the  first 
victory  of  the  left  wing  since  1914. 

Henderson's  resignation  marks  the  beginning  of  his  restoration 
to  the  real  leadership  of  the  Party.  As  a member  of  the  I7ar  Cabinet, 
he  had  been  the  Parliamentary  leader  of  his  Party,  but  there  had 
been  a constantly  v/idening  breach  between  the  Labor  men  in  the 
Government  and  the  great  mass  of  the  workers.  But  Henderson,  appear- 
in  the  light  of  the  martyred  champion  of  Labor's  cause,  and  freed 
from  the  restrictions  imposed  by  his  position  in  the  Government, 
made  a powerful  appeal.  The  change  that  took  place  in  the  labor 
movement  as  a whole  was  very  striking.  In  January,  1917,  the 
Manchester  Conference  of  the  Labor  Party  had  gone  on  record  as 
opposing  any  such  scheme  as  the  Stockholm  conference;  in  March  of 
the  same  year,  the  invitation  of  the  Lutch-Scandinavian  Committee 

1. -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op',  cit.,  p.  12. 


65 » 

had  been  refused;  and  to  the  announcement  that  the  Russian  Council 
of  Workmen's  and  Soldiers'  Deputies  had  invited  all  Socialist  and 
labor  movements  to  a conference  to  adopt  a general  working  class 
policy,  no  response  was  made.  A committee  was  appointed  to  visit 
Russia,  hut  it  never  left  England.  All  the  more  remarkable,  then, 
was  the  reversal  in  opinion  registered  in  the  August  conference 
under  the  influence  of  Henderson.  Even  the  Blackpool  Conference  of 
the  Trades  Union  Congress,  the  most  conservative  constituent  element 
of  the  labor  movement,  expressed  its  disapproval  of  the  course 

adopted  by  the  Government  by  the  overwhelming  vote  of  2,849,000  to 

1. 

91,000.  It  is  significant  that  the  same  Will  Thorne  who  had,  some 
eighteen  months  before,  characterized  as  "absurd"  a plan  to  have 
"delegates  from  Germany,  Austria,  Turkey,  and  Bulgaria  at  a confer- 
ence that  was  to  advise  our  plenipotentiaries  upon  the  terms  of 

2. 

peace"  was  the  man  who  seconded  Smillie's  resolution,  from  the 
Parliamentary  Committee,  that  the  Trades  Union  Congress  assist  and 
take  part  in  an  inter -belligerent  conference.  Host  of  the  negative 
votes  on  the  proposition  can  be  traced  to  the  Sailors'  and  Eiremens' 
Union,  v/hich  had  suffered  so  heavily  from  the  submarine  activities 
of  the  Germans  that  they  had  become  the  most  implacable  of  bitter- 
enders, and  announced,  through  their  President,  Havelock  Wilson, 
that  they  would  refuse  to  convey  such  an  expedition  as  the  proposed 
one  to  Stockholm.  They  also  prevented  Ramsay  Macdonald  from  making 

rj 

• 

a proposed  trip  to  Russia. 


1. -Hellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  16. 

2.  -Ibid.;  p.  20. 

3.  -Inasmuch  as  the  Union  took  this  action  on  their  own  initiative, 

without  consulting  the  Government,  it  is  especially  interest- 
ing as  savoring  of  syndicalism,  on  the  part  of  one  of  the  most 
conservative  of  unions;  had  a union  taken  such  a position  in 
contravention  of  the  Government's  wishes,  a most  interesting 
situation  would  have  arisen. 


66  • 

Having  taken  issue  with  the  Government  over  the  Stockholm  pro- 
ject, Labor,  not  daunted  by  its  apparent  defeat,  turned  its  energies 
to  securing  Inter-Allied  Labor  agreement  on  the  terms  of  peace. 

These  efforts  marked  the  beginning  of  a period  of  renewed  activity 
which  continued  on  into  and  through  1918,  and  which  not  only  lifted 
the  political  labor  movement  out  of  the  condition  of  impotence  into 
which  it  had  fallen,  but  brought  it  to  a plane  of  achievement  to 
which  it  had  not  theretofore  attained.  As  a prelude  to  securing 
Inter-Allied  agreement  on  war  aims,  it  was  of  course  essential  that 
British  Labor  be  brought  to  agree  on  a program.  The  task  was  under- 
taken by  the  national  Executive  of  the  Labor  Party  and  the  Parlia- 
mentary Committee  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress,  under  the  direction 
of  Arthur  Henderson,  who  had  the  sanction  of  the  British  Government. 

The  result  of  their  labors  was  the  publication  of  a remarkable 

1. 

document  known  as  the  Memorandum  on  war  Jims,  which  v/as  presented 

to  the  Westminster  Conference  of  the  Labor  Party  and  passed  by  a 

2. 

vote  of  2,132,000  to  1,164,000.  Five  days  later  it  was  approved  by 
a Joint  Conference  of  the  Labor  Party  and  the  Trades  Union  Congress, 
and  thereby  secured  the  stamp  of  approval  of  the  whole  British 
labor  movement.  Inasmuch  as  this  document  became  the  basis  of 
President  Wilson's  subsequent  fourteen  points,  it  is  perhaps  worth 
while  to  examine  the  paper  in  detail. 

The  pronouncement  begins  with  a declaration  to  the  effect  that 
Labor's  aim  is  to  secure  a lasting  peace  for  the  v/orld.  It  goes  on 
to  state  that  war  must  be  eliminated  by  the  democratization  of 
nations;  by  the  suppression  of  imperialism  and  secret  diplomacy;  by 

1. -A.  Henderson,  The  Aims  of  Labour , Appendix  I. 

2.  -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 


. 


67 


the  abolition  of  compulsory  military  service  everywhere;  by  the 
limitation  of  armaments  and  the  nationalization  of  the  armament 
industry;  and  by  the  formation  of  a League  of  Nations  with  compul- 
sory powers.  It  demands  as  a basis  of  peace  that  there  shall  be  no 
conquests;  that  Belgium  shall  be  restored;  that  Alsace-Lorraine 
shall  exercise • self-determination  by  means  of  a plebiscite;  that 
there  shall  be  a Special  International  Commission  to  settle  the 
Balkan  difficulties  on  the  basis  of  self-determination;  that  the 
purely  Italian  districts  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  head  of  the 
Adriatic  Sea  shall  be  turned  over  to  Italy;  that  Palestine  shall  be 
made  an  independent  Jewish  state;  that  Constantinople  shall  be  a 
neutralised  free  port,  and  the  freed  Turkish  provinces  shall  be 
administered  under  the  League  of  Nations;  that  the  conquered  African 
colonies  shall  be  likewise  managed,  and  eventually  formed  into  a 
state;  and  deals  with  international  problems  of  lesser  import  in 
the  same  spirit. The  Memorandum  denounces  any  she  erne  of  economic 
warfare  after  the  consummation  of  peace,  and  declares  for  free  trade 
except  as  protection  may  be  necessary  to  safeguard  the  interests  of 
the  masses.  As  to  domestic  affairs,  the  statement  favors  the  con- 
tinuation of  Government  retention  of  control  of  commodities  until 
war  shortage  and  emergencies  are  a thing  of  the  past;  demands  that 
action  be  taken  to  prevent  unemployment,  and  suggests  that  public 
works  anticipated  in  the  near  future  be  begun  immediately  upon  the 
cessation  of  hostilities  in  order  that  work  may  be  provided  for  the 
demobilized  troops.  It  concludes  with  a statement  that  all  nations 

should  aid  in  the  reitoration  of  the  devastated  regions, even  to 

the  peasants'  homes;  and  insists  that  the  charges  of  atrocities  so 
freely  made  during  the  war  be  tried,  and  appropriate  awards  and 


68. 


punishments  meted  out. 

The  Allied  governments  finally  agreed  to,  and  furnished  the 
necessary  passports  for,  an  Inter-Allied  Labor  and  .Socialist  Confer- 
ence which  convened  at  London,  February  20-24,  1918.  There  was  much 
opposition  to  such  a meeting,  probably  the  strongest  voices  in 
condemnation  of  it  being  raised  in  America.  After  the  United  States 
had  entered  the  war,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  under  the 
leadership  of  Samuel  Gompers,  which  had  formerly  been  engaged  in 
efforts  to  bring  about  inter-belligerent  conferences,  became  the 
most  violently  nationalistic  labor  movement  to  be  found  in  any  of 
the  Allied  nations,  and  they,  in  particular,  were  outspoken  in 
their  opposition  to  any  consideration  uf  war  aims  and  peace  terms 
before  a military  victory  had  been  achieved.  As  a matter  of  fact, 
however,  it  would  seem  that  most  of  the  critics  of  the  movement 
misunderstood  the  theory  underlying  the  attempt  of  British  labor. 
Arthur  Henderson,  who  had  several  sons  in  the  war,  was  no  pacifist; 
but  he  saw,  as  President  V/ilson  did  also,  that  the  military  offen- 
sive could  be  rendered  more  effective  if  backed  up  by  a moral  and 
political  one.  From  the  entrance  of  the  United  States  into  the  war, 
President  Uilson  had  been  trying  to  detach  the  German  people  from 
their  Junker  leadership  by  distinguishing  between  the  government 
and  the  people;  and  in  the  month  preceding  the  Inter-Allied  Confer- 
ence he  had  issued  his  note  embodying  the  famous  Fourteen  Points; 
but  no  one  had  considered  it  as  a particularly  pacifist  move, 
though  it  had  undoubtedly  discussed  peace  terms.  What  Arthur  Hender- 
son and  the  Labor  Party  men  associated  with  him  we re  trying  to  do 
was  of  the  same  nature . The  adoption  of  well-defined  war  aims  by 
the  representatives  of  the  most  democratic  interests  of  the  Allied 


69. 


nations  was  a clever  lit  of  propaganda  well  calculated  to  offset 
the  misrepresentations  of  the  German  military  leaders  to  their 
people  concerning  Allied  intentions.  Moreover,  the  scheme  was  de- 
signed to  make  even  the  military  offensive  more  effective;  for  in 
1917  and  1918,  when  war-weariness  was  "beginning  to  affect  the 
nations,  and  labor  was  "becoming  increasingly  restive  and  ill-satis- 
fied, such  an  agreement  acted  as  an  incentive  to  renewed  effort. 

The  Belgian  Socialist,  Vandervelde,  repudiated  the  charge  of 
pacifism  in  a speech  at  the  London  Conference  in  the  following 
words:  "But  we  have  more  to  do  than  to  congratulate  ourselves  on 
the  achievement  of  the  Russian  Revolution;  we  must  also  draw 
lessons  from  its  failures.  The  great  lesson  is  that  democracy  was 
committing  an  irretrievable  mistake  by  throwing  away  its  arms  before 
militarism  had  been  defeated,  whilst  holding  the  olive  branch  in  one 
hand,  we  have  to  hold  the  sword  in  the  other.  We  have  been  forced  to 
take  up  the  sword  as  the  only  means  of  defense.  Y/e  must  not  forget 
that  if  we  are  able  to  assemble  here,  it  is  because  the  British 
navy  holds  the  seas,  and  the  millions  of  Allied  soldiers  maintain 
the  line.  If  the  German  offensive  were  to  succeed  the  resolutions 
we  pass  would  be  mere  'scraps  of  paper'  and  of  no  more  value  than 
the  bank  notes  of  the  Russian  state  bank.  If  our  soldiers  are  able 
to  throw  back  the  attack  with  which  we  are  threatened,  we  shall  have 
the  glorious  opportunity  of  taking  a leading  part  in  the  effort  that 
can  be  made  to  attain  a just  and  democratic  peace.”  And  Vandervelde 
pretty  fairly  expressed  the  opinion  of  the  conference.  The  confer- 
ence finally  adopted  a memorandum  on  war  aims  based  in  all  essential 
points  on  the  document  passed  by  British  labor  two  months  before. 


I. -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.,  cit.,  p.  75. 


70. 

Henderson  summed  up  the  idea  of  the  conference  at  its  final 
session  in  these  words:  "As  I understand  the  position  of  Allied 
labor,  it  is  this:  We  seek  a victory;  hut  we  do  not  seek  a victory 
of  a militarist  or  diplomatic  nature.  We  seek  a triumph  for  great 
principles  and  noble  ideals.  We  are  not  influenced  by  imperialist 
ambitions  or  selfish  national  interests.  We  seek  a victory;  but  it 
must  be  a victory  for  international  moral  and  spiritual  forces, 
finding  its  expression  based  on  the  inalienable  rights  of  common 
humanity.  By  the  acceptance  of  the  amended  war  aims,  the  Inter- 
Allied  Conference  has  declared  that,  whilst  we  are  unprepared  to 
continue  the  conflict  for  an  imperialistic  peace  for  the  Allies, 
neither  would  we  consent  to  the  acceptance  of  terms  which  would 
mean  a German  militarist  peace.  We  have  made  our  declarations  of 
policy  in  good  faith,  repudiating  all  deceit  and  cunning.  We  shall 
refuse  to  countenance  any  attempt  by  either  group  of  belligerents 
to  defeat  the  principle  for  which  we  stand.  We  shall  oppose  any 
unscrupulous  application  of  these  principles  to  any  particular 
cases  in  which  any  country  may  be  interested.  We  shall  continue  to 
press  our  case  against  all  opposition,  whether  it  be  internal  or 
external,  in  order  that  we  may  eventually  secure  that  constructive 

democratic  peace  so  essential  to  social  and  economic  peace  the 

1. 

v/orld  over." 

Thus  did  British  labor  contribute  at  once  to  the  hastening  of 
peace,  and  the  more  effective  prosecution  of  the  war.  And  through 
the  months  that  followed  it  continued  to  exert  its  influence  to 
insure  a just  peace  and  a speedy  one.  It  is  but  fair  to  say,  though, 
that  during  the  dark  days  stretching  bet ween  March  and  July,  when 

1. -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op',  cit.,  p.  79. 


71. 


it  looked  as  though  the  German  armies  might  break  through  the  Allied 
line  and  reach  Paris,  the  Party  exerted  its  energies  rather  toward 
increased  military  resistance  than  in  discussion  of  peace  terms.  For 
instance,  in  April  the  executive  of  the  Party  passed  the  following 
resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  national  Executive  of  the  Labor  Party 
places  on  record  its  deep  sense  of  gratitude  for,  and  admiration  of, 
the  heroic  resistance  offered  by  our  armies  in  the  field  to  the 
terrible  onslaughts  of  the  enemy  during  the  recent  offensive.  Such 

magnificent  courage  and  resolution so  consistent  with  the  best 

British  traditions imposes  an  imperative  obligation  upon  all 

sections  of  the  country  to  assist  by  their  skill,  energy,  or  sub- 
stance to  carry  on  the  great  work  of  liberation  in  which  our  armies 
are  engaged  in  order  that  our  joint  efforts  may  eventually  result 

in  the  final  overthrow  of  militarism  and  secure  for  the  world  a 

1. 

lasting  and  democratic  peace." 

A second  Inter-Allied  Labor  and  Socialist  Conference  was  held 
in  London  on  September  17,  18,  and  19,  and  in  this  meeting  even 
Samuel  Gompers  and  an  American  delegation  participated,  together 
with  British,  French,  Italian,  Serbian,  and  Greek  delegations.  The 
convention  gave  unanimous  endorsement  to  President  Wilson*  fourteen 
propositions,  and  steered  a straight  course  between  the  extremists 
both  on  the  right  and  on  the  left.  And  throughout  these  conferences, 
and  others  I have  not  mentioned,  the  moderating, steadying  influence 
was  Henderson. 

A second  manifestation  of  the  reviving  energy  of  Labor  was  the 
promulgation  of  an  extensive  and  elaborate  reconstruction  program. 

1 ‘-Kellogg  and  Gleason  * op.  cit.,  p.  95 . 


• • * - - .«*  . . 


7 


72. 


In  the  Allied  nations  there  had  been  much  talk  of  the  problems  that 

must  be  met  v/hen  the  war  ended,  but  nothing  very  definite  had  been 

1. 

done  in  preparation  for  that  time.  The  report  was  drafted  by  the 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Labor  Party  and  first  submitted  to  the 

annual  conference  of  the  Party  at  Nottingham,  January  23-25,  1918, 

2. 

under  the  title  of  Labor  and  the  Hew  Social  Order . The  pamphlet  at 
once  attracted  widespread  attention,  and  was  extensively  quoted  and 
copied  throughout  the  Allied  nations.  It  was  reprinted  as  a supple- 
ment to  the  New  Republic  in  the  United  States,  and  was  partially 
embodied  in  the  platforms  in  many  of  the  fall  elections.  So  import- 
ant and  far-reaching  v/as  this  document  also,  that  it  is  necessary 
to  summarize  its  provisions. 

The  report  begins  with  a quotation  from  the  Japanese  statesman, 
Count  Okuma,  to  the  effect  that  the  war  signalizes  the  collapse  of 
the  existing  industrial  civilization;  society  must  be  entirely  re- 
constructed; hope  is  expressed  that  political  and  industrial  indi- 
vidualism has  been  forever  downed;  the  new  order  must  be  based  on 
fraternal  cooperative  production.  The  four  essential  elements  of  the 
new  social  order,  referred  to  as  the  four  pillars  of  the  house,  are 
summarized  as  follows: 

a.  Universal  enforcement  of  the  national  minimum. 

b.  The  democratic  control  of  industry. 

c.  The  revolution  in  national  finance. 

d.  The  surplus  wealth  for  the  common  good. 

By  the  national  minimum,  Labor  means  securing  to  all,  in  good 

1. -The  British  Government  did,  indeed,  appoint  a Ministry  of  Re- 

construction, but  its  work  was  inadequate  to  the  exigencies 
of  the  situation. 

2.  -A.  Henderson,  op.  cit.,  Appendix  II. 


73. 

times  or  bad,  the  requisites  of  a healthy  life  and  worthy  citizen- 
ship; employment  must  he  assured  to  all,  and  there  must  he  some  form 
of  social  insurance;  the  administration  of  existing  social  legisla- 
tion must  he  improved,  and  a national  minimum  wage  of  thirty  shil- 
lings a week  is  suggested  for  the  present.  The  report  refers  to  the 
dangers  attendant  upon  demobilization;  reminds  the  Government  that 
Labor  had  some  time  before  called  upon  the  Government  to  declare  its 
demobilization  policy,  and  had  received  no  answer;  suggests  that 
those  men  engaged  in  the  most  essential  industries  be  released 
first.  Labor  insists  that  unemployment  be  avoided,  and  accuses  the 
Government  and  the  Liberal  and  Conservative  parties  with  evading 
this  issue  entirely.  Employment  problems,  declares  the  document, 
should  be  handled  through  the  trades  unions  and  the  Employment 
Exchanges,  the  latter  to  be  jointly  controlled  by  employers  and 
trades  unionists.  The  standard  of  living  must  not  be  lowered;  the 
pre-war  trades  union  privileges  must  be  restored,  and  the  Government 
is  reminded  of  its  pledge.  The  rates  of  real  wages  should  hot  be 
lowered,  and  the  Government,  as  an  employer,  should  set  the  example 
in  this  regard.  Again  the  idea  is  advanced  that  the  Government,  in 
order  to  prevent  unemployment,  should  utilize  public  works  and  the 
Government  service  to  regulate  the  demand  for  labor.  In  order  to 
take  care  of  the  labor  that  will  be  released  by  demobilization,  the 
following  are  suggested:  rehousing,  extension  of  educational  work, 
both  in  building  and  in  a vocational  way,  roads  and  light  railv/ays, 
unification  and  reorganization  of  the  railway  and  canal  system, 
afforestation,  reclamation  of  land,  development  and  better  equipment 
of  ports  and  harbors,  access  to  land  by  cooperative  small  holdings. 
In  addition  it  is  suggested  that  the  school-leaving  age  be  raised  to 


f 


- 


. 


74. 


sixteen;  that  the  number  of  scholarships  and  bursaries  for  higher 
education  be  increased;  that  the  hours  of  labor  of  young  people  be 
shortened;  and  that  the  forty- eight  hour  week  be  adopted  as  the 
national  standard  for  adult  workers  wherever  practicable.  As  for  the 
unemployable,  they  should  be  cared  for  by  social  insurance,  the  cost 
of  which  should  be  borne  partly  by  the  Government;  poor  laws  and 
private  charity  cannot  be  longer  tolerated. 

As  to  the  democratic  control  of  industry:  The  report  states  that 
democracy  means  effective  personal  freedom;  it  demands  that  the 
Military  Service  Acts  (conscription)  be  repealed  at  the  earliest 
possible  opportunity;  supplementary  to  the  present  state  of  politi- 
cal democracy,  it  stands  for  " complete  adult  suffrage,  with  not 
more  than  a three  months'  residential  qualification,  for  effective 
provisions  for  absent  electors  to  vote,  for  absolutely  eoual  rights 
for  both  sexes,  for  the  same  freedom  to  exercise  civic  rights  for 
the  'common  soldier'  as  for  the  officer,  for  Shorter  Parliaments, 
for  the  complete  Abolition  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  for  a most 
strenuous  opposition  to  any  new  Second  Chamber,  whether  elected  or 

not,  having  in  it  any  element  of  Heredity  or  Privilege,  or  of  the 

1. 

control  of  the  House  of  Commons  by  any  Party  or  Class.11  But  the 
Labor  Party  demands  industrial,  as  well  as  political,  democracy, 
implying  the  elimination  of  the  private  capitalist,  service  to  be 
for  the  community  only.  It  is  stated  that  increased  production  will 
only  be  secured  by  common  ownership  of  the  means  of  production,  and 
a demand  is  made  for  nationalization,  as  soon  as  possible,  of  land, 
railways,  mines,  electrical  power, a national  Service  of  Communi- 
cation and  Transport, and,  ultimately,  insurance.  It  is  suggested 

l.-A.  Henderson,  op.  c it .,•  Appendix  II,  p.  99. 


* 


« ' 


- 


. 


■ 


~ 


, 


- * 


75. 


thet  the  liquor  business  be  taken  from  the  hands  of  individuals, 
and  deparate  districts  be  given  the  privilege  of  local  option  on 
the  question  of  license.  The  Party  advocates  the  municipalization 
of  all  local  utilities,  among  which  it  includes  the  following: 
land,  housing,  town  planning,  parks,  libraries,  music,  recreation, 
milk  supply,  in  addition  to  those  activities  usually  included  under 
the  head  of  public  utilities. 

On  the  point  of  financial  reform:  There  is  to  be  no  protective 
tariff;  indirect  taxation  shall  be  limited  to  luxuries,  and  neces- 
saries shall  not  be  taxed;  the  scope  of  sumptuary  taxation  shall  be 
extended,  however.  There  shall  be  direct  and  steeply  graduated 
of  surplus  income  and  inheritances,  the  former  to  be  assessed  by 
families.  A direct  capital  levy  is  suggested  for  the  payment  of 
war  debts.  The  excess  profits  tax  shall  shall  be  continued  "in  an 
appropriate  form",  though  its  application  to  Cooperative  Societies 
shall  be  stopped.  The  unearned  increment  shall  be  reached  by  direct 
taxation  of  land  values.  Surplus  income  above  the  standard  of  liv- 
ing shall  not  go  to  the  building  up  of  individual  fortunes,  but 
will  provide  Society's  capital  needs  and  care  for  those  who  cannot 
aid  in  production,  and  for  the  cultural  advancement  of  the  7/hole 
communi ty . 

Under  the  heading  of  The  Street  of  To-I.lorrow  the  report  then 
discusses  in  a general  way  some  international  problems;  there 
shall  be  home  rule  for  the  British  Empire;  the  idea  of  an  Imperial 
Senate  is  definitely  repudiated;  the  principle  of  self-determination 
of  nations  is  reiterated;  there  shall  be  no  economic  war;  secret 
diplomacy  and  alliances  shall  be  abolished,  and  a League  of  Nations 
with  super -national  authority,  together  with  an  International  ^-ign 


76. 


Court  for  the  settlement  of  disputes,  and  an  International  Legis- 
lature, shall  be  set  up.  The  report  concludes  with  a plea  that  the 
Labor  Party  base  its  advance  upon  Science  and  Knowledge,  stating 
that  Good  Will  without  Knowledge  is  warmth  without  light,  while 
both  are  essential  to  progress. 

The  pronouncement  became  increasingly  important  as  time  went  on, 
not  only  because  of  the  international  attention  it  attracted,  but 
because  it  became  practically  the  Party  platform  at  the  next 
general  election,  and  is  still  extensively  referred  to.  Its  prin- 
ciples are  clearly  Socialistic,  and  show  that  the  Party  had  travel- 
ed a long  way  since  its  inception  in  1900.  The  report  was,  of 
course,  roundly  condemned  as  well  as  praised,  the  nature  of  the 
comment  depending  on  the  source.  The  following  excerpt  from  an 
article  in  the  nineteenth  C entury  expresses  pretty  well  the  bitter- 
ness of  some  of  the  adverse  comment  that  greeted  the  report: 

" It  has  evidently  been  written  by  a Pabian  doctrinaire  and 
perhaps  touched  up  here  and  there  by  a Labor  leader  in  order  to 

adapt  it  to  the  manual  workers’  point  of  view The  most 

painful  passage ..of  the  Report  as  a whole  is  the  evident 

object  of  stirring  up  class  war  by  the  use  of  catchwords  calculated 

1. 

to  deceived  because  never  defined.” 

But  aside  from  the  virtues  or  failings  of  the  Report  itself,  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  it  made  such  an  appeal  to  the  labor  v/orld  of 
Britain  as  had  not  been  made,  probably,  since  its  first  attempt  at 
politics.  The  Memorandum  on  V/ar  Aims  and  Labor  and  the  Hew  Social. 
Order,  indeed,  mark  a new  departure  in  the  political  labor  move- 
ment; heretofore  one  of  the  truest  and  most  general  criticisms 

l.-Lord  Sydenham  of  Combe, , The  Peril  of  Socialism,  in  the 
nineteenth  Centur;;  for  March,  1918, 


77. 


directed  against  the  Labor  Party  had  been  that  it  had  no  specific 
program  of  its  own;  here  we  find  it,  in  the  midst  of  war,  at  a time 
when  the  other  political  parties  seemed  dazed  and  incapable  of  ex- 
pression, promulgating  a most  complete  and  far-reaching  program, 
outlining  not  only  the  general  principles  of  their  political  creed, 
but  also  applying  them  in  more  or  less  detail  to  the  domestic  and 
international  problems  of  the  day. 

There  was,  however,  a third  important  document  marking  the  re- 
juvenation of  the  Party.  The  organization  of  the  group  had  been  for 
a long  time  unsatisfactory.  The  constitution  provided  for  member- 
ship either  on  a basis  of  trade  union  membership,  or  affiliation 
v/ith  one  or  other  of  the  Socialist  bodies  connected  with  the  Party. 
Such  a restriction  meant  that  many  middle  class  and  professional 
well-wishers  of  the  movement  were  excluded  from  the  Party  except  as 
they  might  join  one  of  the  Socialist  bodies,  which  maiy  of  these 
people  were  unwilling  to  do.  This  matter  was  one  of  especial  impor- 
tance because  many  of  those  so  excluded  were  of  the  so-called  in- 
tellectual class,  and  were  capable  of  rendering  the  movement  great 
aid  if  they  could  be  put  in  a position  to  do  so.  Moreover,  when 
this  matter  was  under  particular  discussion  (in  the  fall  of  1917) 
it  was  believed  that  franchise  reform  was  imminent,  and  it  was 
necessary  that  the  Party  make  some  provision  to  capture  its  share 
of  the  millions  of  new  voters  who  would  owe  their  privilege  in  no 
small  degree  to  the  efforts  of  the  Labor  group.  As  a. matter  of  fact, 
the  Representation  of  the  People  Act,  which  granted  woman  suffrage 

( and  it  is  but  fair  to  remark  that  the  Labor  Party,  as  A.  Lawrence 

1. 

Lowell  says,  was  the  only  group  which  had  favored  the  movement  when 


l.-A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  The.  Government  of  England , Vol.II,  p.  216. 


« 


I , I II  . 'I  I 


78. 


it  had  been  unpopular)  and  greatly  extended  male  suffrage,  besides 
making  some  changes  in  the  constituencies  and  slightly  increasing 
the  number  of  representatives  in  the  House  of  Commons,  was  passed 
by  Parliament  early  in  1918,  and  resulted  in  a total  increase  in 
the  electorate  of  about  thirteen  millions.  Inconsideration  of  these 
facts,  then,  the  Party  adopted  at  its  conference  in  London  on 
February  21,  1918,  a new  constitution  designed  to  widen  the  scope 
of  its  membership  and  to  make  the  most  of  the  situation  created  by 
the  new  franchise  act. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  the  most  active  of  the  local  Labor 
Parties,  such  as  those  of  Woolwich  and  Blackburn,  had  for  some  time 
been  accepting  the  aid  of  those  who  were  not  manual  workers,  but 

their  example  was  not  widely  followed.  The  main  features  of  the  new 

1. 

constitution  were  as  follows:  membership  was  to  be  based,  as  before, 
on  the  affiliated  societies,  and  on  membership  in  local  Labor 
Parties,  where  such  members  subscribed  to  the  Constitution  and 
Program  of  the  Party.  There  follows  a section  outlining  the  Party 
objectives,  which  have  already  been  discussed.  As  to  the  Party 
program,  it  is  specified  that  it  shall  be  decided  on  by  the  Party 
Conference,  by  a two-thirds  majority;  the  national  Executive  and 
the  Parliamentary  Party  shall  define  the  issues  before  every 
general  election.  "It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  Parliamentary 
representative  of  the  Party  to  be  guided  by  the  decisions  of  the 
meetings  of  such  Parliamentary  representatives,  with  a view  to 

giving  effect  to  the  decisions  of  the  Party  Conference  as  to  the 

2. 

General  Programme  of  the  Party."  The  work  of  the  Party  shall  be  in 

1.  -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit..  Appendix  III. 

2.  -Ibid.,  p.  239. 


79. 


charge  of  the  Conference,  which  shall  meet  once  a year,  and  at 
other  times  as  convened  hy  the  national  Executive.  The  Conference 
shall  consist  of  delegates  from  affiliated  societies  on  the  "basis 
of  one  for  every  thousand  paid-up  members  represented;  and  of 
representatives  from  the  local  Labor  Parties  according  to  the 
number  of  Parliamentary  representatives  returned  by  the  constituen- 
cy of  the  party;  and  of  delegates  at  the  rate  of  one  each  from 
Trades  Councils  affiliated  to  the  Party  prior  to  November  1,  1917. 
The  National  Executive  shall  consist  of  twenty-three  members,  to  be 
elected  by  the  Conference;  shall  be  responsible  for  the  Party  work 
and  shall  cooperate  with  the  Parliamentary  Party  for  the  purpose  of 
furthering  the  Party  program.  Party  candidates  must  be  approved  by 
the  National  Executive  and  must  appear  on  a Labor  platform  only; 
they  shall  be  aided  in  their  campaign  by  the  Executive,  and  shall 
received  financial  aid  to  cover  their  campaign  expenses  according 
to  the  size  of  the  constituency  they  happen  to  be  contesting.  The 
last  section  deals  with  the  matter  of  Party  finance,  which  is  on  a 
basis  of  twopence  per  member  of  affiliated  organizations,  with 
special  arrangements  for  Trades  Councils  and  local  Labor  Parties. 

This  last  point  was,  indeed,  the  most  difficult  one  of  all.  The 
matter  of  expansion  could  have  been  cairied  out  without  difficulty 
had  it  not  been  necessary  to  retain  the  Trades  Union  basis  as  fund- 
amental because  of  its  financial  assistance .Hence  the  outcome  was 
more  or  less  of  a compromise  between  radical  bodies  such  as  the 
Independent  Labor  Party,  which  had  long  been  agitating  for  the 
admission  of  all  workers  "by  hand  or  brain" , rather  tnan  the  re- 
striction of  the  movement  to  manual  workers,  and  the  conservative 
Trades  Unions,  which  preferred  to  keep  the  Party  on  its  original 


80. 

trade  union  "basis.  The  Fabians  were  also  influential  in  the  change. 


Many  have  argued  that  "by  its  action  the  Party  threw  out  the  old 
class  war  doctrine  of  the  orthodox  Socialists  "by  permitting  the 
affiliation  of  petit  "bourgeois  intellectuals.  The  Party  hoped,  also, 
to  secure  the  aid  of  the  Cooperative  movement,  which  had  first 
entered  politics  in  1917  as  a protest  against  the  action  of  the 
Government  in  attempting  to  apply  the  excess  profits  tax  to  their 
earnings.  The  Cooperatives,  in  declaring  their  intentions  of 
running  candidates  for  Parliament,  made  no  mention  of  party  affil- 
iation, "but  it  was  generally  understood  that  the  majority  of  them 
would  "be  labor  men,  since  the  whole  Cooperative  movement  was 
largely  a working  class  undertaking. 

The  new  constitution  had  been  originally  adopted  as  far  back 
as  October,  1917,  by  the  Party  Executive,  whose  action  was  approved 
by  the  Conference.  The  first  National  Executive  elected  under  the 
provisions  of  the  new  constitution  was  chosen  at  the  June,  1918, 
Conference,  and  the  personnel  was  as  follows:  Of  the  twenty-two 
members  (excluding  the  Treasurer,  Ramsay  Macdonald),  thirteen  were 
representatives  of  Trades  Unions  or  other  affiliated  organizations; 
five  were  from  local  Labor  Parties;  and  four  were  women.  The  Inde- 
pendent Labor  Party  had  lost  its  right  to  separate  representation; 
but  it  is  noteworthy  that  of  those  elected,  two  were  at  the  time 
members  of  the  I.  L.  P.  Executive,  and  one  was  an  ex-member  of  that 
body;  one  of  the  women  was  Mrs.  Philip  Snowden,  and  the  Treasurer 
was  a member  of  the  Independents , showing  that  that  group  had  by 

no  means  its  influence,  even  though  deprived  of  separate  represen- 

1. 

tation. 


1. -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  257. 


81. 


Women  had  become  increasingly  important  in  the  industrial  and 
political  affairs  of  the  nation  during  the  war  years.  Prom  1910  the 

number  of  women  workers  enrolled  in  trades  unions  had  increased 

1. 

from  129,074  to  556,965,  and  this  number  had  practically  doubled 
during  the  war.  And  yet  the  trades  unionists  were  but  a small 
section  of  the  total  of  working  w omen,  who  had  increased  in  number 
nearly  a million  and  a half  during  the  war.  ITaturally  the  Labor 
Party  spread  its  net  to  capture  the  votes  of  these  women  who  had 
recently  been  franchised;  had,  indeed,  taken  them  into  partnership 
long  before  the  nation  had  done  so.  The  local  Labor  Parties  had 
organized  women’s  auxiliaries,  and  women  delegates  had  appeared  in 
national  gatherings,  especially  among  the  more  radical  groups,  such 
as  the  Independent  Labor  Party.  In  1918  the  Trades  Union  Congress 
elected  Margaret  Bondfield,  who  was  already  a member  of  the  Execu- 
tive of  the  I.  L.  P.  to  membership  on  its  Parliamentary  Committee. 
The  election  of  Dr.  Ethel  Bentham,  Mary  Macarthur,  Mrs.  Philip 
Snowden,  and  Susan  Lawrence  to  the  Executive  of  the  Labor  Party  has 
already  been  mentioned.  In  addition  to  appearing  at  the  national 
conferences,  women  often  held  conferences  in  conjunction  with  those 
held  by  the  men.  Thus  at  the  Southport  Conference  of  the  Labor 
Party,  the  women  convened  a day  earlier  than  the  remainder  of  the 
Conference,  and  held  a session,  one  hundred  and  fifty-four  strong, 
under  the  leadership  of  Susan  Lawrence.  The  Women's  Labor  League 
was  formed  to  assist  in  the  formation  of  women's  sections  of  local 
Labor  Parties,  and  its  organ,  Labor  Women  was  taken  over  by  the 
Party.  Yet  in  spite  of  these  efforts,  it  is  interesting  to  note  the 
impressions  of  an  American  eye-witness,  who  admitted  "I  must  leave 


l.-A.  Gleason,  What  the  Workers  Want , p.  259 


82. 


it  as  my  impression  of  half  a dozen  labor  conferences  that  women  as 

1. 

yet  with  difficulty  gain  a hearing." 

The  potential  strength  of  the  labor  movement  had  increased 
greatly  during  the  war.  During  the  five  year  period  1914-1919,  the 
trades  unions  had  practically  doubled  their  membership.  There  had 
been  the  accession  of  the  British  Socialist  Party  in  1916,  and 
there  had  been  some  gains  from  the  Cooperatives  in  1917  (much  of  the 
membership  of  the  Cooperative  movement  had,  of  course,  been  already 
affiliated  with  the  Labor  Party).  The  membership  of  the  Independent 
Labor  Party  had  also  doubled,  and  its  propaganda  was  becoming  con- 
stantly more  effective  and  influential.  At  the  twenty-sixth  annual 
conference  of  this  body  at  Leicester  in  March,  1918,  it  was  an- 
nounced that  one  hundred  and  fifty-three  new  branches  had  been 

established,  and  there  had  been  a gain  of  fifty  per  cent,  in  mem- 

2. 

bership  during  the  year  which  had  just  closed. 

Another  matter  which  tended  to  strengthen  the  political  movement 
was  the  final  repudiation  of  the  political  truce.  At  every  labor 
conference  this  truce  was  the  object  of  attack  from  the  left  wing. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  it  had  not  been  officially  subscribed  to  by 
the  Party  since  the  end  of  1916,  but  it  had  been  observed  with  the 
exception  of  two  or  three  instances  already  alluded  to.  Labor 
members  still  retained  their  position  in  the  Ministry,  though  there 
was  a constantly  widening  gulf  between  several  of  them  and  their 
labor  constituencies.  At  the  time  of  the  Bottingham  Conference  of 
the  Labor  Party,  in  January,  1918,  there  were  eight  labor  leaders 
in  the  ministry,  and  G.  IT.  Barnes  was  in  the  Cabinet.  At  this 


1. -A.  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  107. 

2 . -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  216. 


85. 

conference  there  was  voiced  the  first  menacing  demand  that  the 
Labor  members  resign  from  the  ministry  on  questions  of  policy.  But 
the  moderating  influence  of  Arthur  Henderson  was  sufficient  to  hold 
the  forces  of  the  conference  together  and  to  sidetrack  the  resolu- 
tion calling  for  the  break-up  of  the  Coalition.  But  the  move  for 
separation  from  the  Government  was  a determined  one,  based  on  the 
feeling  that  the  policy  of  the  Labor  Party  had  become  widely  di- 
vergent from  that  of  the  Government.  Party  members  did  not  care  to 
be  responsible  for  war  aims  and  reconstruction  plans  openly  avowed 
by  reactionary  elements  in  the  Government.  But  even  the  extremists 
moved  slowly  because  of  the  uncertainty  of  the  political  situation, 
and  put  the  soft  pedal  on  their  propaganda  during  the  spring  and 
early  summer  days  of  German  menace. 

The  agitation  against  the  continuance  of  the  political  truce 
came  to  a head  in  the  June  Conference.  But  even  then  the  Party  did 
not  insist  on  the  Labor  members  leaving  the  Government;  it  merely 
made  a formal  declaration  of  its  subsequent  freedom  in  elections. 

The  resolution  was  brought  forward  by  the  national  Executive,  and 
read  as  follows: 

"That  this  Conference  of  the  Labor  Party  accepts  the  recommen- 
dation of  the  Party  Executive  that  the  existence  of  the  political 

1. 

truce  should  be  no  longer  recognized." 

The  actual  vote  on  the  proposition  was  1,704,000  for,  and 

2. 

951,000  against,  registering  a majority  of  755,000.  This  conference, 
too,  was  dominated  by  the  more  moderate  element,  such  as  Henderson, 
Thomas,  and  Clynes.  The  latter  had  been  reelected  to  the  executive 

1.  -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  113. 

2.  -Ibid.,  p.  119. 


I 


84. 


of  the  Labor  Party  by  a vote  of  over  two  millions.  He  had,  at  the 
death  of  Lord  Rhondda,  become  the  Pood  Controller  of  Great  Britain. 
Relative  to  the  truce,  he  voiced  the  attitude  of  the  Conference 
when  he  declared  that  its  termination  did  not  mean  any  lessening 
support  of  the  Government  in  the  war,  but  was  necessary  to  allow 
Labor  to  exert  the  strength  it  had  newly  acquired  under  the  reform 
bill.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the  Labor  members  of  the  Cabinet  were 
not  called  out  by  the  Party  until  three  days  after  the  signing  of 

the  Armistice, on  the  eve  of  the  general  election.  Barnes,  who 

had  become  estranged  from  the  labor  movement  during  his  years  of 
Government  service,  and  had  been  defeated  for  the  Labor  Party  nom- 
ination in  his  own  constituency,  refused  to  obey  the  summons, 
joined  the  Lloyd  George  coalition  permanently,  and  was  dropped  by 
the  Party.  Clynes,  on  the  other  hand,  though  he  opposed  the  resolu- 
tion, nevertheless  obeyed  it,  and  campaigned  for  Labor  in  the 
election.  Three  other  Labor  members  followed  the  example  of  Barnes, 
namely:  G.  H.  Roberts,  John  Hodge,  and  J.  G.  ITardle;  the  rest 
obeyed  the  Party  dictum  and  withdrew. 

There  were,  of  course,  many  divergent  elements  at  work  during 
these  troubled  days.  Though  1917  and  1918  were,  on  the  whole,  times 
of  rapid  expansion  and  growing  popularity  for  the  movement,  yet  it 
required  cool  leadership  and  real  tact  for  Henderson,  Clynes,  and 
Thomas  to  steer  a neutral  course  between  Macdonald,  Snowden,  and 
Smillie  on  the  extreme  left,  and  Havelock  Wilson,  Barnes,  and 
Roberts  on  the  right,  without  losing  the  discordant  elements.  The 
moderates  were  not  altogether  successful,  as  we  have  seen;  but  they 
did  remarkably  well  considering  the  difficulties  with  which  they 
had  to  deal.  It  was  inevitable  that  some  divisions  would  crop  out 


85. 


which  could  not  he  fused  again.  Of  these  was  the  British  Workers’ 
League,  an  organization  formed  by  the  most  chauvinistic  and  reac- 
tionary elements  in  the  labor  movement.  The  group  was  formed  during 
the  war  ostensibly  to  promote  cooperation  with  the  Government,  but 
it  did  its  utmost  to  combat  the  steady  movement  of  the  Labor  Party 
toward  the  left,  and  v/as,  accordingly,  regarded  by  that  group  as 
what  might  be  termed  a counter-revolutionary  body.  Some  of  the  more 
radical  organs,  such  as  the  London  Hat ion  and  the  Herald,  for  in- 
stance, even  charged  the  group  with  being  financed  by  capitalist 
funds,  for  the  purpose  of  hindering  the  real  labor  movement.  The 
League  declared  against  Free  Trade,  and  proposed  a modified  capital- 
ism on  the  basis  of  a minimum  wage  after  the  war,  besides  attack- 
ing the  leadership  of  Sidney  Webb  and  Arthur  Henderson  in  the 
Labor  Party.  The  organization  was  founded  by  Victor  Fisher,  a 
former  member  of  the  Social, Democratic  Federation,  and  enrolled 
several  well-known  labor  leaders  among  its  earlier  followers.  When 
it  revealed  its  real  nature,  however,  by  attacking  the  war  aims 
memorandum  and  by  announcing  that  it  would  run  candidates  in  opposi- 
tion to  Labor  Party  men  in  some  constituencies  in  the  coming 
election,  most  of  the  Labor  men  who  had  been  attracted  to  it  with- 
drew their  membership.  At  the  ITottingham  Conference  of  the  Labor 
Party  it  seemed  to  be  the  general  opinion  that  one  could  not  well 
belong  to  the  Party  and  the  League  at  the  same  time.  Smillie 

1. 

referred  to  the  Workers'  League  as  a "black-leg  organization", 
and  the  house  signified  its  approval  by  applause. 

In  the  spring  of  1918  another  apparent  split  occurred  in  the 
Party;  or  at  least  a movement  which  the  hostile  publicists  were 


1. -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  55. 


86. 


pleased  to  call  a split.  The  movement  was  headed  by  J.  B.  Williams, 
head  of  the  Amalgamated  Musicians’  Union,  who  issued  a circular 
advocating  a trade  union  party,  to  he  under  the  exclusive  control 
of  the  Trades  Union  Congress.  One  such  circular  was  signed  hy 
twenty  trades  union  officials  and  members,  two  of  them  being  mem- 
bers of  the  Parliamentary  Committee  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress. 

A joint  meeting  of  the  Parliamentary  Committee  and  the  Labor  Party 
Executive  replied  to  their  propaganda  in  the  following  resolution*. 

"That  this  Joint  Meeting  of  the  Parliamentary  Committee  and 
Labor  Party  Executive,  having  considered  the  circular  issued  by 
J.  B.  Williams  and  signed  by  certain  trade  union  officials,  wherein 
an  appeal  is  made  for  the  formation  of  a Trade  Union  Labor  Party 
which,  in  our  opinion,  is  calculated  to  disrupt  a movement  built  up 
by  years  of  sacrifice,  calls  upon  those  responsible  to  immeidately 
discontinue  such  action,  and  trusts  no  further  stept  will  be  neces- 
sary to  enforce  what  loyalty  our  movement  has  a right  to  expect 

from  those  holding  such  responsible  positions 

"The  Executive  Committee  holds  very  strongly  that  no  worse 
service  could  be  rendered  to  the  movement  under  present  circumstan- 
ces than  that  any  attempt  should  be  made  to  disrupt  either  the 

1. 

political  or  industrial  forces  of  labor " 

Havelock  Wilson  was  an  easy  convert  to  the  new  movement,  and 
he  and  Williams  proceeded  to  organize  a meeting  at  Caxton  Hall, 
Westminster  (v/hich  was  reported  to  have  been  attended  by  four  hun- 
dred people)  for  the  purpose  of  repudiating  the  breaking  of  the 
truce  and  advancing  the  cause  of  the  new  movement.  This  body,  it  is 


1. -Kellogg  and  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  p.  258. 


87. 


true,  managed  maintain  its  existence  through  the  December  elections, 
and  was  more  or  less  successful,  but  inasmuch  as  neither  Williams, 
Wilson,  nor  W.  J.  Davis  (Amalgamated  Brass  Workers),  nor  their 
respective  unions  had  been  affiliated  with  the  Labor  Party,  they 
could  not,  strictly  speaking,  comprise  a split  in  the  Party.  The 
Tories  were  glad  to  hail  it  as  a real  party,  but  Liberal  and 
Radical  groups  minimized  its  importance.  The  group  carried  on  an 
active  propaganda,  however,  and  by  the  end  of  August  they  announced 
that  they  had  distributed  a million  and  a half  copies  of  their 
party  manifesto.  The  group  advocated  a five  year  boycott  of  Germany 
after  the  war,  and  Havelock  Wilson  announced  to  the  Trades  Union 
Congress  at  Derby  in  September  that  he  had  secured  a total  of 
550,000  declarations  among  members  of  the  fighting  forces  favoring 
such  a boycott,  among  them  being  152,000  trades  unionists.  His 
proposal  was  discarded  by  the  Congress,  however,  without  much  dis- 
cussion. The  new  body  finally  adopted  the  name  of  national  Democra- 
tic and  Labor  Party,  and  entered  the  general  election  under  that 
title. 

These  were,  then,  in  brief,  the  main  events  in  Labor's  career 
leading  up  to  the  election  of  1918:  the  Stockholm  conference, 
publication  of  the  Memorandum  on  War  Aims  and  Labor  and  the  Hew 
Social  Order , the  adoption  of  a new  constitution,  organization  of 
the  women's  movement,  and  the  appearance  of  rival  labor  organiza- 
tions.The  general  election,  which  should  have  come  not  later  than 
the  end  of  1915,  had  been  several  times  postponed  by  the  Govern- 
ment because  of  the  country Ts  dislike  of  engaging  in  the  distrac- 
tions and  political  quarrels  incident  to  a campaign  while  the  war 
continued.  The  election  was  finally  set  for  December,  1918.  Mean- 


88  . 


while,  all  forces  had  realized  that  it  could  not  he  postponed  much 
longer,  and  had  been  preparing  for  the  contest.  It  had  been  an- 
nounced at  the  June  Conference  that  the  Party  would  contest  a total 
of  four  hundred  seats  in  the  coming  election.  She  Party  had  to  face 
a new  political  formation,  headed  by  Lloyd  George,  a most  astute 
politician.  It  was  generally  understood  beforehand  that  the  Coal- 
ition premier  would  make  the  most  of  his  record  as  the  man  who  had 
piloted  the  nation  successfully  through  the  war,  and  would  appeal 
to  the  voters  on  the  basis  of  patriotism,  with  reference  to  the 
pacifism  and  defeatism  of  the  Labor  Party.  Por,  as  the  forces  lined 
up  before  the  election,  it  became  evident  that  Labor  would  be  the 
most  important  single  independent  element.  She  Conservatives  prac- 
tically dominated  the  Coalition,  and  were  whole-heartedly  for  its 
continuance;  the  Liberals  were  split,  half  of  them  throwing  in 
their  3-ot  with  the  Coalition,  and  the  remainder  following  the 
independent  leadership  of  Mr . Asquith. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  little  wonder  that  Labor  was  con- 
siderably disappointed  in  the  results  of  the  election.  Phe  contest 
was  fought  while  pride  in  the  nation’s  successful  emergence  from 
the  war  was  still  high,  and  while  people  were  still  praising  Lloyd 
George  as  the  war  leader,  and  it  was  only  too  easy  to  remember  the 
attitude  of  Macdonald,  Snowden,  and  other  labor  leaders  who  had 
favored  peace  by  negotiation.  Phe  result  of  the  election  was  an 
overwhelming  victory  for  the  Coalition,  the  Labor  Party  running  a 
total  of  three  hundred  and  sixty-one  candidates,  and  returning  a 
total  of  fifty-nine  members.  P'he  total  vote  in  the  election  was 
9,690,109,  of  which  Labor  polled  2,575,222,  or  about  one-fourth. 

Phe  vote  of  the  rival  organization,  the  National  Democratic  Party, 


■ 


i- 


89. 


1. 

was  161,521.  further  analysis  makes  out  a rather  more  hopeful  case 
for  Labor.  The  remnant  of  the  Liberals,  under  the  leadership  of  Mr. 
Asquith,  secured  less  than  half  as  many  representatives  as  the  Labor 
Party,  which  thereupon  became  the  most  numerous  minority  party  in 

the  House,  and  were  officially  designated  as  His  Majesty's  Opposi- 

2. 

tion.  Unfortunately,  among  those  who  went  down  under  the  avalanche 
of  anti-pacifist  votes  were  the  most  experienced  and  able  parlia- 
mentarians in  the  Party,  such  as  Henderson,  Macdonald,  Snowden, 

W.  C.  Anderson,  and  E.  W.  Jowett.  Henderson  has  since  regained  his 
seat  at  a bye-election,  but  Macdonald,  one  of  the  original  leaders 
of  the  Party,  has  not,  up  to  the  present,  succeeded  in  getting  into 
the  House,  though  he  has  Since  made  the  effort  at  bye-elections. 

The  total  vote,  which  was  around  ten  millions,  was  only  about 
half  of  the  estimated  potential  maximum  under  the  new  franchise  lav;. 
Of  these,  Labor  polled  roughly  one-fourth,  and  should  have  had,  it 
was  estimated,  on  a proportional  basis,  at  least  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  representatives.  P'he  Coalition,  polling  not  greatly  in 
excess  of  fifty  per  cent,  of  the  total  vote,  secured  an  overwhelming 
majority  in  the  House.  One  other  element  which  might  have  been  a 


1 . -Districts  in; which  the  Labor  candidate  lost  by  a majority  of 

less  than  one  thousand  were  as  follows:  London  and  environs: 
Poplar  Division  of  Bow  and  Bromley,  Stepney  Division  of 
Whitechapel  and  St.  George's;  urban  communities:  Barrow-in- 
Furness,  East  Division  of  Bradford,  East  Division  of  Leyton, 
Rossendale,  Hanley  Division  of  Stoke-on-Trent,  South  Division 
of  Tottenham;  county  districts:  Camborne  Division  of  Cornwall, 
Consett,  Durham,  and  Sedgefield  Divisions  of  Durham,  Horth- 
East  Division  of  Derbyshire,  St.  Albans  Division  of  Hertford- 
shire, Earmworth  Division  of  Lancashire,  King's  Lynn  Division 
of  Norfolk , Peterborough  Division  of  Northamptonshire,  Erome 
Division  of  Somerset,  Cleveland  and  Sowerby  Divisions  of  York- 
shire; Scotland:  Dundee,  Shettleston  Division  of  Glasgow, 
Bothwell  Division  of  Lanarkshire.  Total,  twenty-three . 

2. -S.  and  B.  Webb,  op.  cit.,  p.  699. 


90. 


potent  factor  in  the  election,  though  just  what  its  effect  would 
have  "been  it  is  useless  to  conjecture,  is  the  fact  that  only  a very 
small  percentage  of  the  soldier  vote  was  cast.  As  for  the  national 
Democratic  and  Labor  Party,  it  ran  a total  of  thirty  candidates  and 
secured  some  ten  seats,  their  greatest  success  consisting  in  their 
president’s  defeat  of  Arthur  Henderson. 

Third  Phase:  Contemporary  Politics. 

The  events  which  have  transpired  since  the  Armistice  and  the 
last  general  election  seem  confused  and  somewhat  contradictory. 
During  the  past  thirty  months  the  fortunes  of  Labor  politically  have 
fluctuated  rather  violently.  The  immediate  result  of  the  election 
was,  very  naturally,  a feeling  of  injustice  and  disappointment  over 
the  results  of  the  election;  it  was  felt  that  there  was  something 
very  radically  wrong  with  a system  in  which  one  party  polled  a vote 
five-eighths  as  large  as  that  of  another,  and  only  secured  one- 
eighth  as  many  representatives.  For  a time  Labor  seemed  to  lose 
interest  in  the  political  situation,  and  was  agsin  attracted  by  the 
possibility  of  using  direct  industrial  action  in  order  to  attain  its 
ends.  Its  attentions  were  devoted  rather  more  to  foreign  affairs 
than  had  been  the  case  in  the  past.  A rapid  review  of  its  stand  in 
particular  instances  will  perhaps  serve  to  make  clear  the  general 
principles  lying'  back  of  its  attitude  toward  foreign  relations: 

As  for  Germany,  the  Labor  Party  took  the  stand  that  the  war  was 
a thing  of  the  past,  and  that  the  best  thing  for  all  concerned  was 

a restoration  of  good  feeling  and  a complete  renewal  of  economic 
relations  with  the  defeated  nation.  The  Southport  Conference  of  the 

Labor  Party  (1919)  heartily  applauded  a speech  of  Hamsay  Macdonald's 


91. 

in  which  he  demanded  a real  league  of  nations  providing  for  a mem- 

hership  for  Germany;  and  passed  an  anti-blockade  resolution  with 

1. 

only  one  dissenting  vote. 

Several  of  the  most  interesting  of  the  developments  in  the  Labor 
situation  have  arisen  out  of  the  Russian  Revolution  and  the  condi- 
tions to  which  it  has  given  rise.  The  first  crisis  occurred  in  the 
summer  of  1919,  over  the  issue  of  English  participation  in  the 
Allied  aid  for  counter-revolutionary  forces  in  Russia.  The  extreme 
position  was  well  stated  at  the  Southport  Conference  by  Heil 
Maclean,  M.P.,  as  follows: 

■ "Ho  war  has  been  declared  on  Russia.  Ho  war  credits  have  been 
voted.  The  war  is  unconstitutional  on  the  part  of  the  Government. 

We  are  in  the  war  because  1,600  millions  of  British  capital  is  in- 
vested in  Russia.  Three  Cabinet  ministers.  Sir  Eric  Ged&es,  Austen 
Chamberlain,  and  Walter  Long,  have  money  invested  in  Russia,  and 
wish  Xoltchak  to  win.  Our  troops  use  weapong  made  by  British  arm- 
ament firms  who  have  money  invested  in  Russia,  the  Birmingham 
Small  Arms  Company  among  them.  In  the  House  of  Commons  men  who 
call  the  Labor  Party  Bolshevik  hold  shares  in  Russian  companies, 
and  allow  the  boys  of  the  working  class  to  be  sent  to  fight  for 
their  capital.  The  dowager  Empress  of  Russia  can  enter  this 
country  without  difficulty,  but  labor's  two  delegates  from  Prance 
are  turned  back.  As  between  the  Czarist,  Xoltchak,  and  Bolshevik 
regime,  I stand  by  the  Bolshevik  regime.  So  I call  on  Labor  to 

assist  those  of  us  who  are  in  the  House  of  Commons,  who  wish  to 

2. 

withdraw  out  troops." 

1. -A.  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  pp.  92-95. 

2.  -Ibid.,  pp.  98-99. 


92. 


The  Conference  voted  for  direct  action  on  the  Russian  situation, 

1. 

if  necessary,  hy  a total  of  1,893,000  to  935,000.  The  Conference 
also  called  for  immediate  cessation  of  Allied  operations  in  Russia, 
and  instructed  their  Executive  to  confer  with  the  Parliamentary 
Committee  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress  "with  a view  to  effective 

action  "being  taken  to  force  these  demands  hy  the  unreserved  use  of 

2. 

their  political  and  industrial  power".  The  moderate  element,  inclu- 
ding Clynes  and  Henderson,  opposed  the  use  of  direct  action, 
reminding  the  Conference  that  minority  violence  is  a dangerous 
precedent  to  he  set  hy  a body  which  hopes  in  the  near  future  to 
form  a Government. 

Another  serious  situation  developed  a year  later,  in  connection 
with  the  Polish  war.  Previous  to  this  event,  however,  in  the  spring 
of  1920,  the  Labor  Party  had  sent  a commission  to  Russia  which  had, 
upon  its  return,  recommended  that  British  Labor  demand  the  removal 
of  the  blockade,  the  cessation  of  intervention  schemes,  the  resto- 
ration of  communication,  and  unconditional  recognition  of  the 

3. 

Soviet  Government  by  England. 

In  spite  of  its  sympathetic  attitude  toward  Russia,  the  Labor 
Party  cannot  be  said  to  be  Bolshevist.  Its  leaders  have  practically 
all  repudiated  the  extremes  of  the  Bolshevik  doctrines.  The  Inde- 
pendent Labor  Party,  on  the  extreme  left,  had  refused,  at  its  1920 

Conference  at  Glasgow,  to  affiliate  with  the  Moscow  Internationale 

4. 

by  a vote  of  472  to  206.  Both  Snowden  and  Macdonald,  leaders  of  the 

1. -A  Gleason,  op,  cit.,  p.  105. 

2. -J.  3.  Firth,  Labor  and  the  State . in  the  Fortnightly  Review 

for  August,  1919,  pp.  187-200. 

S.-Cf.  article  British  Labor  Reports  on  Russia,  in  the  Ration 
for  July  10,  1920,  p.  53. 

4.-Y.  Fisher,  Where  Is  Labor  Going?  in  the  nineteenth  Century 
for  May , 1920,  pp.  916-928. 


93 


left  wing,  were  opposed  to  violent  revolution  and  proletarian  dic- 
tatorship. The  British  Socialist  Party  is  the  only  constituent 
body  to  which  the  epithet  of  Bolshevik  can  he  applied  with  any 
degree  of  justice,  and  its  total  membership  is  only  about  two 
thousand.  The  Labor  Party  as  a whole  still  adheres  to  the  Second 
Internationale . 

But  to  return  to  the  Russian  situation:  In  midsummer  of  1920, 
when  the  Poles  were  being  forced  back  toward  Warsaw  in  a precipitate 
retreat,  and  there  was  considerable  talk  of  Allied  intervention  to 
save  them  from  disaster,  Labor  again  took  action.  The  Labor  leaders 
agreed  with  the  Allied  governments  that  an  independent  Poland  was 
essential,  but  they  deniec.  that  Poland  was  in  danger.  A joint  labor 
conference  was  again  convened,  and  again  the  problem  of  direct 
action  came  up.  The  conference  approved  direct  action  in  case  of 
emergency,  even  Thomas  and  Clynes,  the  moderate  leaders,  concurring 
in  the  use  of  the  weapon,  except  as  concerned  domestic  issues.  The 
conference  passed  the  following  resolution: 

"That  the  Council  of  Action  is  hereby  authorized  to  take  any 
steps  that  may  be  necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  decisions  of  this 
conference  and  the  declared  policy  of  the  Trade  union  ana  Labor 
Movement. 

"The  conference  also  recommends  that  the  Parliamentary  Committee 
of  the  Trades  Union  Congress  should  raise  a special  fund  to  meet  the 
financial  requirements  of  the  Council  of  Action  and  for  this  purpose 

impose  a levy  equal  to  a half-penny  per  member  upon  affiliated 

1. 

organizations  as  and  when  required." 

1*-V.  Pisher,  Labor  Evolution  and  Social  Revolution,  in  the 
lineteenth  Century  for  October,  1920,  pp.  595-606. 


94. 


The  threat  implied  in  the  institution  of  a Council  of  Action 
was  never  put  to  the  test,  for  Polish  fortunes  of  war  took  a sudden 
turn  for  the  “better,  and  Allied  intervention  was  unnecessary. 
Critics  disagree,  of  course,  as  to  the  potency  of  Labor's  warning. 
Defenders  of  the  Government  claim  that  the  Party  was  fighting 
enemies  that  did  not  exist,  inasmuch  as  Lloyd  George  had  no  inten- 
tions of  committing  the  nation  to  war  with  Russia.  Harold  Laski , 
on  the  other  hand,  declared  that  Labor  had  averted  war  with  Russia 
by  its  action,  Laski  admitted  that  direct  action  was  constitutional 

usurpation,  but  declared  that  no  one  any  longer  respected  Parlia- 

1. 

ment . 

These  instances  are  typical  of  the  spirit  of  Labor  in  foreign 
affairs.  The  Party  has  at  the  present  time  a very  able  Advisory 
Committee  on  International  Relations,  and  is  exceptionally  well- 
informed.  They  have  not  relied  on  haphazard  sources  of  information, 
but  have  usually  dispatched  their  own  investigating  commissions,  so 
that  they  might  have  first-hand,  dependable  knowledge  of  conditions 
in  foreign  nations.  Their  attitude  toward  imperial  problems  has 
been  similarly  open-minded  and  disinterested.  They  have  advocated 
home  rule  for  India  and  virtual  independence  for  Egypt.  The  Irish 
problem,  naturally,  presented  rather  greater  difficulties. 

Labor  members  have  always  favored  Irish  home  rule,  ever  since 
the  question  was  first  seriously  agitated,  thirty-five  years  ago. 

In  the  crisis  of  1918,  when  the  Government  wished  to  pass  a simul- 
taneous home  rule-conscription  bill  for  Ireland,  the  Labor  members 
had  objected.  J.  H.  Thomas  made  a visit  to  Ireland  to  investigate 

l.-H.  J.  Laski,  British  Labor  and  Direct  Action,  in  the  Hat ion 
for  September  11,  1920,  pp.  291-292. 


, 


' 


4 


95. 


conditions  for  himself,  and  returned  favoring  home  rule,  hut  not  at 

the  price  of  conscription.  Some  two  years  later,  the  Labor  Party 

1. 

sent  to  Ireland  a Commission,  consisting  of  Arthur  Henderson, 
William  Anderson,  and  H.  S.  Lindsay.  These  men  took  the  stand  that 
partition  would  furnish  no  remedy  for  Ireland’s  ills,  and  suggested 
instead  a full  Dominion  self-government,  -with  protection  for  minor- 
ities; defense  and  foreign  affairs  to  he  taken  care  of  hy  an 
Imperial  Parliament;  the  form  of  government  to  he  chosen  hy  a Con- 
stituent Assembly,  representing  all  the  people,  elected  on  a basis 
of  proportional  representation.  They  disclaimed  all  responsibility 
on  the  part  of  Labor  for  the  state  of  affairs  in  Ireland.  Acting 
on  the  report  of  its  Commission,  the  Party  reiterated  its  belief  in 
self-determination,  but  stated  its  belief  that  there  should  be  at 
least  a link  between  Ireland  and  England.  The  Party  did  not  go 
quite  so  far  as  the  Commission  in  their  recommendations,  but  de- 
clared rather  for  a constitution  to  be  conferred  upon  Ireland,  not 
to  be  subject  to  change  for  an  agreed  number  of  years.  It  would 
seem  from  this  that  not  even  Labor  could  bring  itself  to  contem- 
plate with  equanimity  the  prospect  of  an  independent  Ireland.  A 
special  conference  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress  in  July,  1920,  de- 
clared by  a large  majority,  for  direct  action  to  force  the  Govern- 
ment to  change  its  Irish  policy,  but  nothing  seems  to  have  come  of 
2. 

the  matter.  The  Westminster  Conference  of  the  Labor  Party,  meeting 
December  29,  1920,  passed  a resolution  on  Ireland,  calling  for 
judicial  inquiry  of  reprisals,  and  condemned  Sinn  Eein  outrages  and 

1. -Cf.  article,  Ireland  and  British  Labor . in  the  Hat ion 

for  April  10,  1920,  p.  450. 

2. -G.  D.  H.  Cole,  British  Labor  Hesitates , in  the  ITew  Republic 

for  September  ?29 , 1920,  .pp.  121-125. 


■ 

' 

$ 

t 

• 

. 

96. 


1. 

and  reprisals  both. 

In  domestic  affairs  the  past  few  months  have  added  greatly  to 
the  strength  of  the  labor  movement,  at  least  as  far  as  its  trades 
union  basis  is  concerned.  The  trades  union  movement  is  now  estima- 
ted to  have  a total  membership  of  upwards  of  six  millions,  which, 
considering  the  families  of  the  men,  represents  roughly  half  the 
population  of  Great  Britain.  The  actual  paid-up  membership  of  the 
Labor  Party  as  announced  at  the  June  Conference,  in  1919,  totalled 

3,015,129,  7/hich  represented  a net  gain  of  a half  million  over  the 

2 . m 

vote  registered  by  the  Party  six  months  before.  The  trades  unions 
furnished  ninety-nine  per  cent,  of  the  membership,  the,  Socialist 
societies  aggregating  52,720  members  (a  large  number  of  these  being 
likewise  trades  unionists).  At  the  Scarborough  Conference,  a year 

later,  the  Party  membership  7/as  estimated  at  3,500,000,  represent- 

3. 

ing  a further  gain  of  a half  million  during  the  intervening  year. 

By  that  time  the  Party  was  organized  in  nine-tenths  of  the  five 
hundred  and  eighty  constituencies,  and  had  three  hundred  candidates 
in  readiness  for  the  next  general  election,  with  a probability  of 
running  five  hundred  altogether. 

nevertheless,  Labor  was  politically  v/eak  during  this  period. 

Its  successes  were  due  largely  to  the  natural  swing  of  the  political 
pendulum,  and  to  the  v/idespread  discontent  with  the  existing  Govern- 
ment. The  Parliamentary  group  representing  the  Party  was  the  weak- 
est in  political  ability  that  had  as  yet  sat  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, deprived  as  they  were  by  the  fortunes  of  the  election,  of 

1 .  -Labour  Gazette  for  January,  1921,  p.  10. 

2.  -A.  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  pp.  251-252. 

3 .  -Y/ebb , S.,  British  Labor  in  Conference , in  the  ITew  Republic 

for  August’  11,  1920,  pp.  307-309. 


97. 


their  leaders.  The  Parliament  of  1919  was  a great  disappointment  to 
Labor.  Luring  that  year  and  the  year  following  there  occurred  a 
number  of  strikes  in  the  country.  The  causes  of  unrest  we re  numer- 
ous: dissatisfaction  over  the  unfair  result  of  the  election  of  1918, 
Lloyd  George's  attack  on  the  Labor  men  as  Bolshevists,  unemploy- 
ment, the  Government's  reversion  to  an  individualistic  policy,  the 
fact  that  there  seemed  to  be  no  definite  policy  of  demobilization, 
continuance  of  conscription,  failure  of  the  Government  to  withdraw 

war  restrictions  soon  enough,  delay  and  evasion  on  the  question  of 

1. 

nationalization  of  railways,  profiteering,  and  war  restlessness. 

The  tendency  toward  the  left  was  strongly  evident  in  these 
days.  The  movement  in  favor  of  direct  industrial  action  has  already 
been  noticed;  it  grew  in  strength  until  it  finally  received  the 
sanction  not  only  of  the  Labor  Party,  but  even  of  the  more  slowly 
moving  Trades  Union  Congress,  as  regards  certain  foreign  problems : 
in  domestic  affairs  the  moderate,  constitutional  influence  of 
Henderson,  Clynes,  and  Thomas  kept  direct  action  out  of  the  program 
of  Labor.  Efforts  at  industrial  reform  were  redoubled,  in  spite  of 
the  Government's  unfavorable  attitude.  Foremost  among  these  efforts 
was  the  institution  of  the  Sankey  Coal  Commission.  Phis  Commission 
differed  from  its  predecessors  in  that  it  was  a statutory  commission 
rather  than  a Royal  Commission.  As  Lloyd  George  himself  said,  "A 
royal  commission  would  not  anSY/er  the  purpose;  it  v/ould  not  have 
the  necessary  powers . We  have  decided  to  have  a statutory  commission 
with  authority  of  Parliament  behind  it,  with  the  same  power  as  now 
rests  in  a court  of  justice."  The  Government  v/as  pledged  to  make  its 

1. -A.  Gleason,  op.  cit.,  pp.  251-252. 

2.  -Ibid,  p.  40. 


98. 

findings  lav;  on  wages  and  hours.  The  Commission  compelled  some  of 
the  leading  capitalists  of  the  country  to.  give  evidence  vefore  it 
as  to  prices  and  profits.  The  miners'  cause  was  in  the  hands  of 

three  miners, Robert  Smillie,  Herbert  Smith,  and  Prank  Hodges, 

and  three  expert  advisers, Sidney  Webb,  Sir  Leo  Chiozza  Honey,  and 

R.  H.  Tawney;  and  even  Conservative  organs  admitted,  with  annoyance, 
that  their  case  was  much  more  efficiently  presented  than  was  that  of 

the  capitalists,  who  v/ere  represented  by  three  coal  owners, J.  T. 

Porgie,  R.  W.  Cooper,  and  Evan  Williams,  and  their  three  advisers, 
Arthur  Balfour,  Sir  Arthur  Buckram,  and  Sir  Thomas  Roy den.  Hr. 

Justice  Sankey,  in  charge  of  the  Commission,  eventually  threw  in  his 

1. 

ballot  with  the  miners,  and  the  resultant  report  not  only  made  re- 
commendations on  hours  and  wages,  but  came  out  strongly  for  nation- 

2. 

alization.  Lloyd  George  has  since  refused  to  be  bound  by  that 
section  of  the  report,  and  Labor  now  has  it  as  one  of  its  objectives 
to  force  the  Government  to  take  that  stand.  Lloyd  George  was  also, 
at  one  time,  quite  favorable  to  the  project  of  the  nationalization 
of  railways,  but  he  also  retreatec  from  that  position. 


1. -Por  Report  of  the  Sankey  Commission,  see  A.  Gleason,  op.  cit.. 

Appendix,  Section  4,  p.  422  et  sec. 

2.  -It  must  be  remembered  that  the  term  nationalization  now  has  a 

somewhat  different  connotation  from  what  it  formerly  had. 
nationalization,  in  the  sense  in  which  British  Labor  uses  the 
term,  does  not  mean  simply  state  socialistic  ownership  and 
bureaucratic  control  of  the  mines,  but  means  rather  that  the 
actual  title  to  the  properties  is  vested  in  the  state,  while 
control  is  in  the  hands  of  the  miners  themselves.  Of  late 
there  has  arisen  another  term  in  connection  with  coal 

disputes, pooling  of  profits, which  means  virtually 

operating  the  coal  industry  as  a unit  as  far  as  profits  are 
concerned,  so  that  wages  will  not  be  regulated,  as  they 
have  been  in  the  past,  by  the  amount  that  the  least  produc- 
tive mine  can  afford  to  pay,  but  rather  by  the  average;  the 
workers  also  hope  by  this  method  to  eliminate  the  tremendous 
differential  profits  accruing  to  the  owners  of  the  most  pro- 
ductive properties  under  the  individualistic  scheme  at  present 
in  vogue . 

v_0 


99. 


labor's  reform  efforts  in  other  directions  seem  to  have  made 
but  little  impression  as  yet.  It  has  repeatedly  proclaimed  its 
position  on  financial  reform,  but  the  Government  is  not  very  likely 
to  take  action  on  it  for  some  time  to  come.  As  to  the  franchise, 
the  Party,  though  elated  over  the  reform  of  1918,  would  prefer 
further  changes,  with  greater  leniency  in  the  matter  of  residence 
requirements,  since  labor  is  necessarily  a more  or  less  mobile 
element  of  the  population. 

While  the  study  of  bye-elections  may  afford  a rather  uncertain 
basis  for  prediction,  still  it  must  be  admitted  that  those  which 
have  occurred  since  1918  at  least  demonstrate  the  growing  unpopu- 
larity of  the  Coalition  Government.  In  the  first  seventeen  bye-elec- 
tions since  the  general  election,  the  Coalition  vote  has  totalled 
136,917,  or  forty-three  per  cent,  of  the  total  vote;  the  anti- 
Coalition  vote  has  been  178,186,  or  fifty-seven  per  cent.  In  these 
elections  the  Coalition  has  lost  sis  seats.  Ten  independent  Liber- 
als competed,  with  an  average  vote  of  6,024;  sixteen  Coalition 

candidates  averaged  8,558;  and  the  twelve  Labor  candidates  who  ran 

1. 

had  an  average  vote  of  9,482.  The  Labor  Party  would  have  contested 
a greater  number  of  these  elections  had  it  not  been  for  a shortage 
of  funds.  As  it  was,  Labor  increased  its  representation  to  sixty- 
two.  In  the  most  recent  months,  however,  the  Party  seems  to  have 
lost  some  of  its  popularity.  The  inability  of  the  former  leaders, 
such  as  Macdonald  and  Snowden,  to  regain  their  seats,  is  a dis- 
couraging sign.  The  most  recent  defeat  of  Macdonald  in  the  bye- 
election  at  Woolwich,  which  had  for  a long  time  been  a Labor  strong- 

l.-S.  Webb,  Portent  of  Spen  Valiev . in  the  ITem  Republic 
for  February  4,  1920,  pp.  285-288. 


' 


. 


- 


100. 


hold,  indicates  that  a great  many  people  still  remember  with  resent- 
ment the  pacifist  attitude  of  several  of  the  Labor  Party's  ablest 

leaders  during  the  war.  And  even  so  sympathetic  a critic  as  kt. 

1. 

Harold  Laski , writing  from  London  less  than  six  months  ago,  gave 
it  as  his  opinion  that  the  movement  is  just  at  present  on  the  de- 
cline, as  compared  w ith  that  it  had  been  one  year  previously.  A 
Labor  Government,  according  to  this  observer,  instead  of  being  the 
likely  successor  to  the  present  Government,  will  probably  not 
arrive  for  ten  years  yet.  The  reasons  he  gives  for  the  situation 
are  as  follows:  the  impotence  of  the  Labor  M.P.'s, their  inex- 

pertness in  debate,  and  their  apparent  indifference;  the  fact  that 
the  wrong  men  have  been  chosen  to  lead  Labor;  the  aggressive 
counter-offensive  of  capitalism;  and  the  fact  that  Labor  has  no 
effective  official  organ. 

The  future  of  the  British  Labor  Party  looks  cloudy  and  uncer- 
tain. It  se~ms  probable  that  the  time  will  come  when  there  will  be 
a Labor  Government,  but  whether  that  time  will  be  1925  or  1950  it 
is,  of  course , impossible  to  forecast.  At  the  present  time,  it  seems 
doubtful  whether  the  gains  due  to  the  new  form  of  organization 
adopted  in  1918  are  not  somewhat  offset  by  a loss  of  solidarity. 

J.  E.  Thomas  recently  complained  that  the  Labor  Party  could  no 
longer  command  the  loyalty  of  its  own  members.  The  present  Y/eakness 
of  the  Party  seems  to  lie  in  the  problem  of  organization,  and  in 
the  question  of  finances. 

It  may  be  said  that  both  the  strength  and  the  weakness  of  the 

l.-H.  J.  Laski,  British  Labor ' s future , in  the  Survey  for 
February  26,  1921,  pp . 7S5-75&. 


101. 


political  labor  movement  is  its  trade  union  basis.  Of  course  the 
trades  unions  furnish  the  great  organized  mass  of  voters;  but 
politically  they  are  slow  moving  and  jealous  of  their  own  preroga- 
tives. They  prefer  to  run  their  own  candidates  for  election,  rather 
than  to  vote  for  some  middle  class  intellectual  or  Socialist  on  the 
Labor  ticket;  which  is  entirely  within  their  rights,  of  course,  but 
unfortunately  for  the  cause  of  Labor,  they  usually  select  one  of 

their  trades  union  officials, President  or  Secretary, and  these 

men,  in  many  eases,  have  no  particular  ability.  Moreover,  the 
unions,  in  many  cases,  retain  these  men  in  their  executive  rela- 
tionship to  their  unions,  and  so  their  attentions  and  activities 
are  divided  between  their  two  duties,  instead  of  being  concentrated 
toward  securing  the  greatest  efficiency  in  the  House'.  They  dare  not 
resign  their  union  offices,  not  only  because  it  would  tend  to  es- 
trange them  from  their  constituencies,  but  also  because  these 
offices  carry  with  them  a salary,  and  most  of  the  Labor  M.P.'s  are 
so  situated  financially  that  they  cannot  afford  to  rely  on  their 
po  itical  fortunes  for  a livelihood.  Moreover,  the  executive  author- 
ity of  the  labor  movement  has  been  so  split  up  betv/een  the  three 

bodies, the  Parliamentary  Committee  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress, 

the  national  Executive  of  the  Labor  Party,  and  the  Parliamentary 

Party, that  considerable  confusion  of  policy  and  lack  of  harmony 

and  cooperation  between  them  has  resulted,  in  spite  of  the  forma- 
tion of  a Joint  Board  to  coordinate  their  efforts. 

Another  serious  weakness  which  seriously  hampers  the  effective- 
ness of  the  Party  is  its  lack  of  sufficient  funds.  The  sums  afforded 
by  the  comparatively  insignificant  levy  of  twopence  per  member  per 
year  are  entirely  inadequate  to  supply  the  needs  of  a national 


102. 


party  which  proposes  to  contest  practically  every  constituency  in 
the  country  in  the  next  general  election.  The  number  of  candidates 
entered  in  the  1918  election  had  to  he  cut  down,  the  number  of 
bye-elections  contested  was  curtailed,  and  recently  Sidney  '7 ebb  has 
written  that  it  is  probable  that  funds  will  be  insufficient  to 
finance  the  number  of  candidates  that  the  Party  wishes  to  run  in 

the  next  general  election.  The  Scarborough  Conference  of  the  Party 

1. 

in  1920  raised  the  affiliation  fee  of  the  Party  fifty  per  cent. 

Some  have  hoped  that  the  accession  of  the  Cooperative  movement 
might  mean  the  possibility  of  drawing  upon  their  large  financial 
reserves  for  political  purposes,  but  this  seems  to  be  a rather 
remote  possibility,  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  financial 
problem  is  a serious  one  which  shows  no  signs  of  solution  as  yet. 

Another  weakness  charged  to  the  account  of  Labor  is  that  the 
Party  lacks  the  requisite  leadership  to  conduct  a Government,  should 
the  verdict  of  the  polls  call  upon  them  to  do  so.  Just  at  present 
this  point  seems  to  be  worked  mainly  by  Liberal  publicists  who  are 
anxious  to  arrange  a new  Liberal-Labor  alliance,  in  which  the 
Liberal  Party  would  furnish  the  necessary  leadership,  to  be  swept 
into  power  on  the  Labor  vote.  But  it  would  seem  that  there  is 
plenty  of  effective  and  able  leadership  in  the  Labor  movement, 

provided  only  that  labor  can  be  persuaded  to  select  the  right  men. 

\ 

It  seems  especially  unlikely  that  Labor,  having  attained  its 
present  strength  unaided,  would  novr  consent  to  share  the  fruits  of 
a political  victory  with  the  Liberal  Party.  A general  realignment 
of  political  forces  in  the  country  is  probable,  however,  before 

l.-S.  Y/ebb,  British  Labor  in  Conference,  in  the  Hew  Republic 
for  August  11,  1920,  pp . 507-309. 


103. 


another  general  election  occurs. 

On  the  whole,  the  British  Labor  Party  seems  to  have  been  a 
stimulating,  clarifying  influence  in  British  politics  of  the  last 
twenty  years.  Labor  has  formed  a very  real  interest  group,  as 
compared  with  the  older  political  parties  of  the  nineteenth  Cen- 
tury. There  are  those,  of  course,  who  claim  that  it  is  purely  a 
class  movement;  it  would  seem  that  recent  reorganizations  would  go 
far  to  refute  such  a charge,  but  even  if  it  were  admitted,  the 
Labor  Party  might  retort  that  all  government  is  more  or  less  class 

rule, whether  the  ruling  influence  be  recognized  or  not.  The 

Party  had  become  increasingly  Socialistic,  it  is  true;  but  the 
charge  of  Socialism  is  not  in  itself  an  argument;  and  even  the  most 
anti-Socialistic  who  yet  subscribe  to  the  principles  of  democracy 
and  majority  rule  cannot  conscientiously  charge  with  malice  and 
perfidy  a majority  which  proceeds,  by  regular,  constitutional 
procedure,  to  enforce  a program  with  which  we  may  disagree.  And, 
though  the  British  do  not  initiate  their  reforms  suddenly  and  with 
violence,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  availability  of  the  consti- 
tutional weapon  was  a powerful  offsetting  influence  to  the  growth 
of  syndicalism  and  the  idea  of  direct  industrial  action.  Even  now 
the  struggle  between  the  two  modes  of  procedure  rages,  and  it  is  to 
be  sincerely  hoped  that  the  next  election,  however  it  may  go,  will 
at  least  reflect  the  opinion  of  the  country  with  greater  justice 
than  did  the  last  one,  in  order  that  the  extremists  may  be  deprived 
of  the  apparent  justification  for  direct  action  that  they  are 
using  so  effectively  to-day.  The  labor  movement  in  Great  Britain 
is  better  organized  politically  and  industrially  than  anywhere  else 
in  the  world;  it  is  well  within  the  range  of  possibilities  that 


104. 


within  the  next  few  years  Great  Britain  may  have  a Labor  Govern- 
ment; hut  it  is  well  to  remember  that  in  the  past,  as  it  has  been 
admitted  to  power,  Labor  has  adopted  a more  moderate  and  cautious 
tone;  her  most  moderate  leaders  to-day  are  constitutionalists;  in 
view  of  these  facts,  therefore,  and  considering  the  British  genius 
for  compromise  and  reform  by  degrees,  there  is  little  reason  to 
fear,  in  the  eventuality  of  a Labor  Government,  any  violent  over- 
turning of  existing  institutions,  but  rather  we  may  expect  a steady, 
gradual  process  of  reform  which  shall  in  time  bring  about  far- 
reaching  and  fundamental  changes  in  the  social  and  political 
status  of  the  country. 


105. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

I.  Source  Material. 

House  of  Lords:  Lav/  Reports,  Appeal  Cases. 

The  Labour  Gazette,  London. 

The  Labor  Party:  Annual  Reports;  statements  of  accounts. 

Quarterly  Circular. 

Constitution;  adopted  at  the  London  Conference, 
February  26,  1918. 

Labor  and  the  Hew  Social  Order. 

Memorandum  on  War  Aims. 

The  Labour  Year  Book.  London. 

The  Constitutional  Year  Book.  London. 

II.  General  Sources. 

Cole , G.  I) . H. , 

Labour  in  V/ar  Time.  London,  1915. 

Friedman,  E.  M. , 

Labor  and  Reconstruction  in  Europe.  Hew  York,  1919. 

Gleason,  A.  H. , 

Inside  the  British  Isles.  Hew  York,  1917. 

What  the  Workers  Y/ant.  Hew  York,  1920. 

Hammond,  M.  B., 

British  Labor  Conditions  and  Legislation  During  the  War. 

Hew  York,  1919 . 

Hayes,  C.  H., 

British  Social  Politics.  Boston,  Hew  York,  1913. 

Henderson,  A., 


The  Aims  of  Labor.  London,  1918 


106. 


Humphrey,  A.  IV., 

A History  of  Labour  Representation.  London,  1912. 

Lane,  R.  H.  A.  (Horman  Angell), 

The  British  Revolution  and  the  American  Democracy.  Rev/  York, 
1919. 

Lowell,  A.  L., 

The  Government  of  England.  Hew  York,  1912. 

Ho  el,  Conrad, 

Labor  Party;  what  it  is,  and  what  it  wants.  London,  1906. 
Ogg,  F . A., 

The  Governments  of  Europe.  Hew  York,  1913. 

Osborne,  W.  V., 

My  Case.  London,  1910. 

Phillips,  M. , et.  al., 

Homen  and  the  Labor  Party.  Hew  York,  1918. 

Webb,  Sidney  and  Beatrice, 

The  History  of  Trade  Unionism.  London,  1920. 

III.  Special  Articles. 

Atherley- Jones , L.  A., 

Story  of  the  Labour  Party,  nineteenth  Century,  60:576-586. 
Labour  Party  in  Parliament.  Fortnightly  Review,  91:435-445. 
Barnes,  G.  H. , 

Charter  of  the  British  Labor  Party.  Fortnightly  Review, 
94:847-851. 

Baumann , A . A . , 

Law  and  the  Labour  Party.  Fortnightly  Review,  96:604-614. 
Brooks,  S., 

Parties  in  England.  Harper’s  Weekly,  47:1698. 


107 


Cole,  G.  D.  H., 

Recent  Developments  in  the  British  Labor  Movement.  American 
Economic  Review,  September,  1918. 

British  Labor  and  Reconstruction.  Dial,  65:465-468. 

British  Labor  Hesitates.  Hew  Republic,  24:121-123. 

Combe,  Lord  Sydenham  of, 

The  Peril  of  Socialiam.  nineteenth  Century,  March,  1918. 

Cox,  H. , 

Despotism  of  the  Labour  Party,  nineteenth  Century,  70:187-200. 
Davis,  R.  G., 

Labour  Movement;  a psychological  study.  Westminster  Review, 

167: 601t611 . 

Diack,  17., 

Radicalism  and  Labour.  Westminster  Review,  154:133-142. 

Aims  and  Aspirations.  Arena,  35:476-480. 

Dilnot,  P#, 

Soviets  in  England.  Outlook,  126:184-185. 

Firth,  J.  B., 

Labour  and  the  State.  Portnightly  Review,  112:187-200. 

Labour  and  Democracy  Since  the  War.  Portnightly  Review, 
115:204-216. 

Pisher,  V., 

Labour  and  a General  Election.  Edinburgh  Review,  228:371-386. 
Where  is  Labour  Going?  nineteenth  Century,  87:916-928. 

Labour  Evolution  and  Social  Rivolution.  nineteenth  Century, 

88: 595-606. 

Gleason,  A., 

The  Social  Revolution  in  England.  Century,  February,  1917. 


108. 


Green,  17.  D., 

Real  Meaning  of  a Labour  Government,  nineteenth  Century, 

87 : 254-263 . 

Hardie , J.  K. , 

Labour  and  Politics  in  Great  Britain.  Forum,  29:726-753. 
Independent  Labour  Party.  Nineteenth  Century,  53:686-694. 
Federated  Labor  in  British  Politics.  North  American  Review, 
177:233-241. 

Labour  at  the  Forthcoming  Election.  Nineteenth  Century, 
59:12-24. 

British  Labour  Movement.  Nineteenth  Century,  60:875-882. 

The  British  Labor  Party.  International  Socialist  Review, 

May,  1910. 

Harris,  H.  17. , 

British  Labor  in  the  Ascendant.  New  Republic,  13:117-119. 

Hatch,  E., 

Uprising  of  Labour.  Nineteenth  Century,  87:17-26. 

Hearnshaw,  F.  J.  C., 

Labour  Party  at  the  Crossways.  Fortnightly  Review,  111:341-351. 
Henderson,  A., 

Trades  Unions  and  Parliamentary  Representation.  Contemporary 
Review,  95:173-176. 

Outlook  for  Labour.  Contemporary  Review,  115:121-130. 

New  International  Order.  Yale  Review,  7:678-687. 

Hewlett,  M. , 

Labour  Party  and  the  Future.  Fortnightly  Review,  93:299-304. 
Hobson,  J.  A., 

New  Labor  Party  in  England.  Current  Literature,  38:103-104. 


109. 


Horwill,  H.  VI. , 

Payment  of  Labor  Representatives  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
Political  Science  Quarterly,  25:317-327. 

Humphrey,  A.  W., 

British  Labor  Movement  and  the  War.  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
32:1-27. 

Hurd,  A., 

Great  Siege:  British  Labour  and  Bolshevism.  Fortnight ly 
Review,  114:211-225. 

Jones,  H., 

Corruption  of  the  Citizenship  of  the  Working  Man.  Hibbert 
Journal,  10:155-178. 

Kennedy,  J.  M. , 

Failure  of  the  Labour  Party.  Fortnightly  Review,  100:885-899. 
Kirkup , T . , 

British  Labor  Party.  Outlook,  97:322-327. 

Laski , H.  J., 

British  Labor  and  Direct  Action.  Ration,  111:291-292. 

British  Labor’s  Future.  Survey,  45:753-754. 

Mac ass ey,  L., 

Labour  Party  and  its  Policy.  Quarterly  Review,  234:317-337. 

Mac donal d , J . R . , 

Osborne  Judgment  and  Trades  Unions.  Contemporary  Review, 
98:535-542. 

Corruption  of  the  Citizenship  of  the  Working  Man;  answer  to 

H.  Jones.  Hibbert  Journal,  10:344-361. 

Drifting  toward  a Labor  Government.  Ration,  110:256-258. 

British  Labor  Party  Conference.  Ration,  111:94-95. 


110 


Mallock,  W#H., 

Political  Powers  of  Labour,  nineteenth  Century,  60:208-214. 
Marriott,  J.  A.  R., 

Political  Syndicalism.  Fortnightly  Review,  111:331-340. 

Soviet  vs.  Parliament.  Fortnightly  Review,  114:551-563. 
Masterman,  C.  F., 

Liberalism  and  Labour,  nineteenth  Century,  60:706-718. 
Morgan-Browne,  H., 

Problems  of  Labour.  Fortnightly  Review,  86:916-924. 

Pease,  E.  R., 

Labor  Party  in  England.  American  Journal  of  Sociology, 
10:560-561. 

Porritt,  E., 

Party  Conditions  in  England.  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
21:206-236. 

The  British  Socialist  Labor  Party.  Political  Science  Quarterly, 
23:468-497. 

British  Labor  Party  in  1910.  Political  Science  Quarterly, 

25: 297-316. 

Robertson,  J.  M. , 

Idea  of  a Labour  Party.  Contemporary  Review,  113:614-620. 
Seddon,  J.  A., 

Sane  Labour  Program,  nineteenth  Eentury,  87:589-594. 

Smi  th , W . R . , 

Labour  and  Land,  nineteenth  Century,  89:408-416. 

Taylor,  B., 

Labourism  in  Parliament.  Fortnightly  Review,  85:1115-1130. 
Thomas,  J.  H., 

..hat  British  Labor  wants.  Independent,  104:215-216. 


111. 

Ussher , R . A. , 

Council  of  Action  and  Poland,  nineteenth  Century,  88:436-444. 
Vivian,  H. , 

Pretended  Labour  Parties.  Fortnightly  Review,  85:151-162. 

Webb , S., 

Reorganization  of  the  British  Labor  Party,  hew  Republic, 
13:149-152. 

Portent  of  Spen  Valley.  Hew  Republic,  21:285-288. 

British  Labor  in  Conference.  Hew  Republic,  23:307-309. 

.. elldon , J » Hi . C . , 

Church  and  the  Labour  Party,  nineteenth  Century,  73:943-959. 

Unsigned  Articles. 

Blackwood's  Magaaine.  Simple  Egoism.  179:844-849. 

Edinburgh  Review:  Socialism  in  the  House  of  Commons.  204:273-305. 
Fortnightly  Review:  Labour's  Mi stake: neglect  of  Public  Opinion, 

112:594-602. 

Liberal  Magazine,  1893  to  date.  London, 
nation:  Ireland  and  British  Labor.  110:450. 

British  Labor  and  the  Irish  Settlement.  110:467-470. 

British  Labor  and  the  Hungarian  Terror.  111:53-54. 

British  Labor  Reports  on  Russia.  111:53. 

Labor's  Plan  for  Egypt.  111:699-700. 

Hew  Republic:  nationalism  of  the  British  Labor  Party.  16:63-65. 
Uorth  American  Review:  Labor  Men  in  Parliament.  182:617-622. 

British  Labor  Party.  190:269-274. 


World's  Work:  British  Labor's  Programme.  35:591-593. 


3 01 12  099086321 


